Garcia v. Renaissance Gardens Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Garcia v. Renaissance Gardens Associates

242 A.D.2d 463, 662 N.Y.S.2d 260, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8815

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

DecidedSeptember 18, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 242 A.D.2d 463 (Garcia v. Renaissance Gardens Associates) 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

Garcia v. Renaissance Gardens Associates, 242 A.D.2d 463, 662 N.Y.S.2d 260, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8815 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (William Davis, J.), entered April 1, 1996, which, insofar as appealed from, dismissed plaintiffs claim under Labor Law § 241 (6) after the close of plaintiffs case, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Although a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (e) may provide the basis for a claim under Labor Law § 241 (6) (see, e.g., Colucci v Equitable Life Assur. Socy., 218 AD2d 513), the trial court correctly held that that provision of the Industrial Code has no application to the facts of this case, which involve a hazard that arose from an integral part of the work plaintiff was performing (see, Adams v Glass Fab, 212 AD2d 972; cf., Lenard v 1251 Ams. Assocs., 241 AD2d 391). In particular, plaintiffs injury resulted from the sudden exposure to sharp edges of beams that broke loose from a plastic strap while he was carrying the beams; the injury was not caused by an “accumulation” of “[s]harp projections” in a “passageway” or “[w]orking area” (12 NYCRR 23-1.7 [e]). Plaintiffs contention that the trial court erred in excluding his expert’s testimony is rendered academic by the inapplicability of the Industrial Code. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Ellerin and Williams, JJ.

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

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (William Davis, J.), entered April 1, 1996, which, insofar as appealed from, dismissed plaintiffs claim under Labor Law § 241 (6) after the close of plaintiffs case, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Although a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (e) may provide the basis for a claim under Labor Law § 241 (6) (see, e.g., Colucci v Equitable Life Assur. Socy., 218 AD2d 513), the trial court correctly held that that provision of the Industrial Code has no application to the facts of this case, which involve a hazard that arose from an integral part of the work plaintiff was performing (see, Adams v Glass Fab, 212 AD2d 972; cf., Lenard v 1251 Ams. Assocs., 241 AD2d 391). In particular, plaintiffs injury resulted from the sudden exposure to sharp edges of beams that broke loose from a plastic strap while he was carrying the beams; the injury was not caused by an “accumulation” of “[s]harp projections” in a “passageway” or “[w]orking area” (12 NYCRR 23-1.7 [e]). Plaintiffs contention that the trial court erred in excluding his expert’s testimony is rendered academic by the inapplicability of the Industrial Code. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Ellerin and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

242 A.D.2d 463, 662 N.Y.S.2d 260, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8815, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garcia-v-renaissance-gardens-associates-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack