Gniewek v. Consolidated Edison Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gniewek v. Consolidated Edison Co.

271 A.D.2d 643, 707 N.Y.S.2d 871, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4549

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

DecidedApril 24, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 271 A.D.2d 643 (Gniewek v. Consolidated Edison 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

Gniewek v. Consolidated Edison Co., 271 A.D.2d 643, 707 N.Y.S.2d 871, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4549 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dye, J.), dated March 17, 1999, which denied his motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

It is well established that summary judgment will be granted only if there are no triable issues of fact (see, Sillman v Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 3 NY2d 395, 404). Issue finding, rather than issue determination, is the key to summary judgment (see, Krupp v Aetna Life & Cas. Co., 103 AD2d 252, 261). The court should refrain from making credibility determinations (see, Capelin Assocs. v Globe Mfg. Corp., 34 NY2d 338, 341), and the papers should be scrutinized carefully in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion (see, Robinson v Strong Mem. Hosp., 98 AD2d 976). Contrary to the plaintiffs arguments, the court properly determined that there was a triable issue of fact as to whether he was a “recalcitrant worker” for purposes of Labor Law § 240 (1) (see, [644]*644Watso v Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 228 AD2d 883; Hickey v Perry & Sons, 223 AD2d 799; Ortega v Catamount Constr. Corp., 226 AD2d 154). Similarly, there are questions of fact as to the plaintiffs comparative negligence for purposes of Labor Law § 241 (6) (see, Drago v New York City Tr. Auth., 227 AD2d 372, 373). Bracken, J. P., Ritter, Krausman and Smith, 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 plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dye, J.), dated March 17, 1999, which denied his motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

It is well established that summary judgment will be granted only if there are no triable issues of fact (see, Sillman v Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 3 NY2d 395, 404). Issue finding, rather than issue determination, is the key to summary judgment (see, Krupp v Aetna Life & Cas. Co., 103 AD2d 252, 261). The court should refrain from making credibility determinations (see, Capelin Assocs. v Globe Mfg. Corp., 34 NY2d 338, 341), and the papers should be scrutinized carefully in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion (see, Robinson v Strong Mem. Hosp., 98 AD2d 976). Contrary to the plaintiffs arguments, the court properly determined that there was a triable issue of fact as to whether he was a “recalcitrant worker” for purposes of Labor Law § 240 (1) (see, [644]*644Watso v Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 228 AD2d 883; Hickey v Perry & Sons, 223 AD2d 799; Ortega v Catamount Constr. Corp., 226 AD2d 154). Similarly, there are questions of fact as to the plaintiffs comparative negligence for purposes of Labor Law § 241 (6) (see, Drago v New York City Tr. Auth., 227 AD2d 372, 373). Bracken, J. P., Ritter, Krausman and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

271 A.D.2d 643, 707 N.Y.S.2d 871, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4549, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gniewek-v-consolidated-edison-co-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack