Dorville v. Royal Farms, Inc.

2019 NY Slip Op 1195

• Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
• Decided: February 20, 2019
• Docket: Index No. 3165/14
• Status: Published

Opinion

Dorville v Royal Farms, Inc. (2019 NY Slip Op 01195)

Dorville v Royal Farms, Inc.

2019 NY Slip Op 01195

Decided on February 20, 2019

Appellate Division, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on February 20, 2019 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P.
JOHN M. LEVENTHAL
BETSY BARROS
VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.

2016-05334
(Index No. 3165/14)

[*1]Domingo Dorville, appellant,

v

Royal Farms, Inc., respondent.

Lipsig, Shapey, Manus & Moverman, P.C. (Pollack, Pollack, Isaac & DeCicco, LLP, New York, NY [Brian J. Isaac and Michael H. Zhu], of counsel), for appellant.

White and Williams LLP, New York, NY (Rafael Vergara of counsel), for respondent.

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Debra Silber, J.), dated April 21, 2016. The order denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240(1) and granted the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof granting the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and substituting therefor a provision denying the cross motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Both parties' respective motions for summary judgment should have been denied, as there are triable issues of fact as to the nature of the task the plaintiff was performing at the time of the accident, and whether, under the circumstances, that task constituted one of the protected activities within the meaning of Labor Law § 240(1).

RIVERA, J.P., LEVENTHAL, BARROS and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court