Fielding v. Environmental Resources Management Group

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fielding v. Environmental Resources Management Group

253 A.D.2d 713, 678 N.Y.S.2d 253

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

DecidedSeptember 29, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 253 A.D.2d 713 (Fielding v. Environmental Resources Management Group) 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

Fielding v. Environmental Resources Management Group, 253 A.D.2d 713, 678 N.Y.S.2d 253 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lorraine Miller, J.), entered on or about January 24, 1996, which, inter alia, granted the motions of defendants and third-party defendant for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and order, same court and Justice, entered April 4, 1996, which, to the extent appealable, denied plaintiffs motion to renew and adhered to the court’s original January 24, 1996 determination, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff, who was allegedly injured while taking soil samples, has no cause of action under Labor Law § 240 (1) because elevation was not a factor in his injury (Rocovich v Consolidated Edison Co., 78 NY2d 509). Nor is Labor Law § 241 (6) applicable because plaintiff was not involved in excavation as defined by 12 NYCRR 23-1.4 (b) (19). Finally, there is no merit to plaintiff’s argument that the IAS Court erred in entertaining successive motions for summary judgment. New materials, including deposition transcripts, obtained through discovery since the prior round of motion practice rendered the instant motions entirely appropriate (see, Beagan v Manhattanville Nursing Care Ctr., 176 AD2d 633, lv denied 79 NY2d 753). Concur — Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Wallach and Williams, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lorraine Miller, J.), entered on or about January 24, 1996, which, inter alia, granted the motions of defendants and third-party defendant for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and order, same court and Justice, entered April 4, 1996, which, to the extent appealable, denied plaintiffs motion to renew and adhered to the court’s original January 24, 1996 determination, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff, who was allegedly injured while taking soil samples, has no cause of action under Labor Law § 240 (1) because elevation was not a factor in his injury (Rocovich v Consolidated Edison Co., 78 NY2d 509). Nor is Labor Law § 241 (6) applicable because plaintiff was not involved in excavation as defined by 12 NYCRR 23-1.4 (b) (19). Finally, there is no merit to plaintiff’s argument that the IAS Court erred in entertaining successive motions for summary judgment. New materials, including deposition transcripts, obtained through discovery since the prior round of motion practice rendered the instant motions entirely appropriate (see, Beagan v Manhattanville Nursing Care Ctr., 176 AD2d 633, lv denied 79 NY2d 753). Concur — Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Wallach and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

253 A.D.2d 713, 678 N.Y.S.2d 253, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fielding-v-environmental-resources-management-group-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack