Gold v. NAB Construction Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gold v. NAB Construction Corp.

288 A.D.2d 434, 733 N.Y.S.2d 681, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11337

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

DecidedNovember 26, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 288 A.D.2d 434 (Gold v. NAB Construction Corp.) 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

Gold v. NAB Construction Corp., 288 A.D.2d 434, 733 N.Y.S.2d 681, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11337 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Weiss, J.), dated August 4, 2000, as granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1), and denied their cross motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability on that cause of action.

[435]*435Ordered that the order, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the Supreme Court properly dismissed their cause of action based on Labor Law § 240 (1). The metal steps from which the injured plaintiff fell were a “normal appurtenance to the [subway tunnel] and [were] not designed as a safety device to protect him from an elevation-related risk” (Norton v Park Plaza Owners Corp., 263 AD2d 531, 532; see, Karnarvogel v Tops Appliance City, 271 AD2d 409; Barrett v Ellenville Natl. Bank, 255 AD2d 473; see generally, Melber v 6333 Main St., 91 NY2d 759). S. Miller, J. P., Luciano, Schmidt 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, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Weiss, J.), dated August 4, 2000, as granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1), and denied their cross motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability on that cause of action.

[435]*435Ordered that the order, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the Supreme Court properly dismissed their cause of action based on Labor Law § 240 (1). The metal steps from which the injured plaintiff fell were a “normal appurtenance to the [subway tunnel] and [were] not designed as a safety device to protect him from an elevation-related risk” (Norton v Park Plaza Owners Corp., 263 AD2d 531, 532; see, Karnarvogel v Tops Appliance City, 271 AD2d 409; Barrett v Ellenville Natl. Bank, 255 AD2d 473; see generally, Melber v 6333 Main St., 91 NY2d 759). S. Miller, J. P., Luciano, Schmidt and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

288 A.D.2d 434, 733 N.Y.S.2d 681, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11337, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gold-v-nab-construction-corp-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack