Fuentes v. Lindsay Park Hous. Corp.

203 A.D.3d 487, 160 N.Y.S.3d 867, 2022 NY Slip Op 01513
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 10, 2022
DocketIndex No. 300141/17E Appeal No. 15482 Case No. 2021-00741
StatusPublished

This text of 203 A.D.3d 487 (Fuentes v. Lindsay Park Hous. 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
Fuentes v. Lindsay Park Hous. Corp., 203 A.D.3d 487, 160 N.Y.S.3d 867, 2022 NY Slip Op 01513 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2022).

Opinion

Fuentes v Lindsay Park Hous. Corp. (2022 NY Slip Op 01513)
Fuentes v Lindsay Park Hous. Corp.
2022 NY Slip Op 01513
Decided on March 10, 2022
Appellate Division, First 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 and Entered: March 10, 2022
Before: Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Mazzarelli, González, Shulman, Rodriguez, JJ.

Index No. 300141/17E Appeal No. 15482 Case No. 2021-00741

[*1]Felix Fuentes, Plaintiff-Respondent,

v

Lindsay Park Hous. Corp., Defendant-Appellant.


Gannon, Rosenfarb & Drossman, New York (Lisa L. Gokhulsingh of counsel), for appellant.

Berson & Budashewitz, LLP, New York (Jeffrey A. Berson of counsel), and Wingate, Russotti, Shapiro & Halperin, LLP, New York, for respondent.



Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alison Y. Tuitt, J.), entered February 23, 2021, which, to the extent appealed from, upon reargument, denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the common-law negligence and Labor Law §§ 200 and 241(6) claims, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

With respect to the Labor Law § 241(6) claim, the motion court correctly determined that plaintiff was performing his painting and plastering work in a vacant apartment in a construction context (see 12 NYCRR 23-1.4[b][13]; Aarons v 401 Hotel, L.P., 12 AD3d 293 [1st Dept 2004]) and that an issue of fact existed as to whether his slipping on and/or tripping over a thin plastic covering placed over newly installed flooring, which became entangled in his feet, constituted a tripping hazard as defined in Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-1.7(e).

With respect to the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, issues of fact exist regarding whether defendant's employees created or had actual or constructive notice of the condition at issue (see generally Mendoza v Highpoint Assoc., IX, LLC, 83 AD3d 1, 9 [1st Dept 2011]). THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: March 10, 2022



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

Related

Aarons v. 401 Hotel, L.P.
12 A.D.3d 293 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Mendoza v. Highpoint Associates, IX, LLC
83 A.D.3d 1 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
203 A.D.3d 487, 160 N.Y.S.3d 867, 2022 NY Slip Op 01513, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fuentes-v-lindsay-park-hous-corp-nyappdiv-2022.