DiMarco v. Heckler Electric Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

DiMarco v. Heckler Electric Co.

290 A.D.2d 373, 736 N.Y.S.2d 595, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 821

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 29, 2002·Published

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered on or about March 2, 2001, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff, as is required (see, e.g., Graham v Columbia-Presbyterian Med. Ctr., 185 AD2d 753, 755), it is plain that there are triable issues of fact as to the role of defendant’s employees in positioning the lighting fixture that injured plaintiff. Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Ellerin and Marlow, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered on or about March 2, 2001, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff, as is required (see, e.g., Graham v Columbia-Presbyterian Med. Ctr., 185 AD2d 753, 755), it is plain that there are triable issues of fact as to the role of defendant’s employees in positioning the lighting fixture that injured plaintiff. Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Ellerin and Marlow, JJ.

DiMarco v. Heckler Electric Co., 290 A.D.2d 373, 736 N.Y.S.2d 595, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 821 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

290 A.D.2d 373 (DiMarco v. Heckler Electric Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related