Farrell v. Okeic

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Farrell v. Okeic

303 A.D.2d 957, 755 N.Y.S.2d 677, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2866

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 21, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 303 A.D.2d 957 (Farrell v. Okeic) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Farrell v. Okeic, 303 A.D.2d 957, 755 N.Y.S.2d 677, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2866 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from an order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Nicholson, J.), entered September 18, 2002, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing reinstated claims.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed with costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for injuries he sustained when he fell through the loft of a barn owned by defendant. On a prior appeal, we modified an order granting defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the complaint by denying that part of the cross motion seeking dismissal of the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims and reinstating those claims (Farrell v Okeic, 266 AD2d 892 [1999]). Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the reinstated claims. “Initially, we note that successive summary judgment motions ‘should be discouraged in the absence of a showing of newly discovered evidence or other sufficient cause’” (Town of Wilson v Town of New fane, 192 AD2d 1095, 1095 [1993]; see Marine Midland Bank v Fisher, 85 AD2d 905, 906 [1981]). Defendant failed to show that the evidence submitted in support of the motion was newly discovered or that it could not have been submitted on the prior cross motion (see Ashford v Rochester Hosp. Serv. Corp., 214 AD2d 954, 955 [1995]). In any event, defendant failed to tender sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of material issues of fact whether plaintiff fell through the area of the loft floor that plaintiff’s employer was hired to repair and whether the deteriorated condition of the loft floor was open and obvious (see Farrell, 266 AD2d at 893; see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). Present— Green, J.P., Pine, Hurlbutt and Lawton, JJ.

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

—Appeal from an order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Nicholson, J.), entered September 18, 2002, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing reinstated claims.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed with costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for injuries he sustained when he fell through the loft of a barn owned by defendant. On a prior appeal, we modified an order granting defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the complaint by denying that part of the cross motion seeking dismissal of the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims and reinstating those claims (Farrell v Okeic, 266 AD2d 892 [1999]). Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the reinstated claims. “Initially, we note that successive summary judgment motions ‘should be discouraged in the absence of a showing of newly discovered evidence or other sufficient cause’” (Town of Wilson v Town of New fane, 192 AD2d 1095, 1095 [1993]; see Marine Midland Bank v Fisher, 85 AD2d 905, 906 [1981]). Defendant failed to show that the evidence submitted in support of the motion was newly discovered or that it could not have been submitted on the prior cross motion (see Ashford v Rochester Hosp. Serv. Corp., 214 AD2d 954, 955 [1995]). In any event, defendant failed to tender sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of material issues of fact whether plaintiff fell through the area of the loft floor that plaintiff’s employer was hired to repair and whether the deteriorated condition of the loft floor was open and obvious (see Farrell, 266 AD2d at 893; see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). Present— Green, J.P., Pine, Hurlbutt and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

303 A.D.2d 957, 755 N.Y.S.2d 677, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2866, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/farrell-v-okeic-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack