Fuller v. Rolm Telecommunications Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fuller v. Rolm Telecommunications Co.

206 A.D.2d 503, 615 N.Y.S.2d 278, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7619

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

DecidedJuly 25, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 206 A.D.2d 503 (Fuller v. Rolm Telecommunications Co.) 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

Fuller v. Rolm Telecommunications Co., 206 A.D.2d 503, 615 N.Y.S.2d 278, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7619 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golar, J.), dated February 10, 1993, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Due to the Rolm appellants’ ongoing involvement with the telephone system in question pursuant to a maintenance and service agreement with the third-party defendant Gertz Corporation, the trial court properly concluded that issues of fact exist which support the denial of the appellants’ motion for summary judgment. By Rolm’s admission, its technicians were on the premises on several occasions after the desks in the office were rearranged. Given this fact, Rolm cannot rely upon the rearrangement of the desks as an intervening superseding cause of the plaintiff having tripped over the slack telephone wire. Thompson, J. P., Rosenblatt, Ritter, Friedmann and Krausman, 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 defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golar, J.), dated February 10, 1993, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Due to the Rolm appellants’ ongoing involvement with the telephone system in question pursuant to a maintenance and service agreement with the third-party defendant Gertz Corporation, the trial court properly concluded that issues of fact exist which support the denial of the appellants’ motion for summary judgment. By Rolm’s admission, its technicians were on the premises on several occasions after the desks in the office were rearranged. Given this fact, Rolm cannot rely upon the rearrangement of the desks as an intervening superseding cause of the plaintiff having tripped over the slack telephone wire. Thompson, J. P., Rosenblatt, Ritter, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

206 A.D.2d 503, 615 N.Y.S.2d 278, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7619, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fuller-v-rolm-telecommunications-co-nyappdiv-1994.