Frank v. Beck Wainwright Holding Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Frank v. Beck Wainwright Holding Corp.

279 A.D.2d 606, 720 N.Y.S.2d 163, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 849

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

DecidedJanuary 29, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 279 A.D.2d 606 (Frank v. Beck Wainwright Holding Corp.) 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

Frank v. Beck Wainwright Holding Corp., 279 A.D.2d 606, 720 N.Y.S.2d 163, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 849 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Colabella, J.), entered October 6, 1999, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgement dismissing the complaint, (2), as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the same court, dated January 10, 2000, as, upon reargument, adhered to the prior determination, and (3) from an order of the same court, dated January 25, 2000, which, sua sponte, resettled the order dated January 10, 2000.

Ordered that on the Court’s own motion, the notice of appeal from the order dated January 25, 2000, is treated as an application for leave to appeal, and leave to appeal is granted (see, CPLR 5701 [c]); and it is further,

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated October 6, 1999, is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the order dated January 10, 2000, made upon reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated January 10, 2000, is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the order dated January 25, 2000; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated January 25, 2000, is affirmed; and it is further,

[607]*607Ordered that the defendant is awarded one bill of costs.

The defendant made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. It was unforeseeable that the plaintiff, while at the defendant’s premises to conduct business as the defendant’s accountant, would take it upon himself to climb a ladder from which he would then fall and sustain an injury (see, Basso v Miller, 40 NY2d 233; Johnson v Summa, 230 AD2d 633). Moreover, the plaintiff failed to satisfy the required elements of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur (see, Finocchio v Crest Hollow Club, 184 AD2d 491; DeSimone v Inserra Supermarkets, 207 AD2d 615). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to submit evidence sufficient to establish the existence of a triable issue of fact (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557). Bracken, Acting P. J., O’Brien, Florio and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Colabella, J.), entered October 6, 1999, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgement dismissing the complaint, (2), as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the same court, dated January 10, 2000, as, upon reargument, adhered to the prior determination, and (3) from an order of the same court, dated January 25, 2000, which, sua sponte, resettled the order dated January 10, 2000.

Ordered that on the Court’s own motion, the notice of appeal from the order dated January 25, 2000, is treated as an application for leave to appeal, and leave to appeal is granted (see, CPLR 5701 [c]); and it is further,

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated October 6, 1999, is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the order dated January 10, 2000, made upon reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated January 10, 2000, is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the order dated January 25, 2000; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated January 25, 2000, is affirmed; and it is further,

[607]*607Ordered that the defendant is awarded one bill of costs.

The defendant made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. It was unforeseeable that the plaintiff, while at the defendant’s premises to conduct business as the defendant’s accountant, would take it upon himself to climb a ladder from which he would then fall and sustain an injury (see, Basso v Miller, 40 NY2d 233; Johnson v Summa, 230 AD2d 633). Moreover, the plaintiff failed to satisfy the required elements of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur (see, Finocchio v Crest Hollow Club, 184 AD2d 491; DeSimone v Inserra Supermarkets, 207 AD2d 615). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to submit evidence sufficient to establish the existence of a triable issue of fact (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557). Bracken, Acting P. J., O’Brien, Florio and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

279 A.D.2d 606, 720 N.Y.S.2d 163, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 849, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frank-v-beck-wainwright-holding-corp-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack