Felix v. Independence Savings Bank

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Felix v. Independence Savings Bank

89 A.D.3d 895, 932 N.Y.2d 719

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

DecidedNovember 15, 2011

StatusPublished

This text of 89 A.D.3d 895 (Felix v. Independence Savings Bank) 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

Felix v. Independence Savings Bank, 89 A.D.3d 895, 932 N.Y.2d 719 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

The plaintiff allegedly was injured when he fell from a scaffold, which was on wheels, while performing pipefitting work. He established, prima facie, that the defendants were subject to liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) based on his deposition testimony that a wheel of the scaffold on which he was working slipped into a hole, causing him to fall (see Caballero v Benjamin Beechwood, LLC, 67 AD3d 849, 852 [2009]).

[896]*896In opposition, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact (cf. Wiener v Rosmarin, 282 AD2d 449, 450 [2001]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the cause of action alleging violations of Labor Law § 240 (1). Angiolillo, J.E, Leventhal, Austin and Roman, JJ., concur.

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

The plaintiff allegedly was injured when he fell from a scaffold, which was on wheels, while performing pipefitting work. He established, prima facie, that the defendants were subject to liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) based on his deposition testimony that a wheel of the scaffold on which he was working slipped into a hole, causing him to fall (see Caballero v Benjamin Beechwood, LLC, 67 AD3d 849, 852 [2009]).

[896]*896In opposition, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact (cf. Wiener v Rosmarin, 282 AD2d 449, 450 [2001]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the cause of action alleging violations of Labor Law § 240 (1). Angiolillo, J.E, Leventhal, Austin and Roman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 A.D.3d 895, 932 N.Y.2d 719, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/felix-v-independence-savings-bank-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack