Gonzalez v. Fastflex, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gonzalez v. Fastflex, Inc.

270 A.D.2d 229, 704 N.Y.S.2d 515, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2493

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

DecidedMarch 6, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 270 A.D.2d 229 (Gonzalez v. Fastflex, Inc.) 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

Gonzalez v. Fastflex, Inc., 270 A.D.2d 229, 704 N.Y.S.2d 515, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2493 (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, Westchester County (Coppola, J.), entered December 7, 1998, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Liability under Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence will not attach when the allegedly dangerous condition of which the plaintiff complains was open and obvious (see, Panetta v Paramount Communications, 255 AD2d 568), particularly where, as in the instant case, the plaintiff was actually aware of the condition (see, Tarrazi v 2025 Richmond Ave. Assocs., 260 AD2d 468). The plaintiff’s arguments raised in opposition to the defendant’s motion were either speculative or without merit. Therefore, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Luciano 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, Westchester County (Coppola, J.), entered December 7, 1998, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Liability under Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence will not attach when the allegedly dangerous condition of which the plaintiff complains was open and obvious (see, Panetta v Paramount Communications, 255 AD2d 568), particularly where, as in the instant case, the plaintiff was actually aware of the condition (see, Tarrazi v 2025 Richmond Ave. Assocs., 260 AD2d 468). The plaintiff’s arguments raised in opposition to the defendant’s motion were either speculative or without merit. Therefore, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Luciano and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

270 A.D.2d 229, 704 N.Y.S.2d 515, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2493, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gonzalez-v-fastflex-inc-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack