Gillette v. VSA Development Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gillette v. VSA Development Corp.

255 A.D.2d 417, 682 N.Y.S.2d 597, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12026

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 16, 1998·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Bernhard, J.), dated March 10, 1998, as granted the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability on the cause of action asserted under Labor Law § 240 (1).

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, with costs, and the motion is denied.

The Supreme Court erred in granting the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), as questions of fact exist as to whether (1) the safety device provided by the defendants was so placed as to give proper protection to the injured plaintiff, and (2) the injured plaintiffs own actions were the sole proximate cause of the accident (see, George v State of New York, 251 AD2d 541; Tsangalidis v O.K.G. Professional Consultants, 243 AD2d 627; Vanerstrom v Strasser, 240 AD2d 563). Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Thompson and Joy, 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, etc., the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Bernhard, J.), dated March 10, 1998, as granted the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability on the cause of action asserted under Labor Law § 240 (1).

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, with costs, and the motion is denied.

The Supreme Court erred in granting the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), as questions of fact exist as to whether (1) the safety device provided by the defendants was so placed as to give proper protection to the injured plaintiff, and (2) the injured plaintiffs own actions were the sole proximate cause of the accident (see, George v State of New York, 251 AD2d 541; Tsangalidis v O.K.G. Professional Consultants, 243 AD2d 627; Vanerstrom v Strasser, 240 AD2d 563). Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Thompson and Joy, JJ., concur.

Gillette v. VSA Development Corp., 255 A.D.2d 417, 682 N.Y.S.2d 597, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12026 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

255 A.D.2d 417 (Gillette v. VSA Development Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related