Glazik v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Glazik v. City of New York

306 A.D.2d 516, 761 N.Y.S.2d 863, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7677

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

DecidedJune 30, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 306 A.D.2d 516 (Glazik v. City of New York) 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

Glazik v. City of New York, 306 A.D.2d 516, 761 N.Y.S.2d 863, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7677 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants New York City School Construction Authority and Plato Construction appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated September 25, 2002, as granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), and denied those branches of their cross motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6) causes of action.

Ordered that the order is modified by deleting the provision thereof granting the motion and substituting therefor a provision denying the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

There are issues of fact requiring the denial of summary judgment. Ritter, J.P., S. Miller, Luciano and H. Miller, 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 New York City School Construction Authority and Plato Construction appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated September 25, 2002, as granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), and denied those branches of their cross motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6) causes of action.

Ordered that the order is modified by deleting the provision thereof granting the motion and substituting therefor a provision denying the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

There are issues of fact requiring the denial of summary judgment. Ritter, J.P., S. Miller, Luciano and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

306 A.D.2d 516, 761 N.Y.S.2d 863, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7677, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/glazik-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack