Grove v. Cornell University

957 N.E.2d 1137, 17 N.Y.3d 875, 933 N.Y.S.2d 635, 2011 NY Slip Op 7258
New York Court of Appeals·Decided October 18, 2011·No. 239 SSM 33·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The judgment appealed from and the order of the Appellate Division brought up for review should be modified, without costs, by denying defendants’ motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of plaintiffs Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and, as so modified, affirmed.

*877 Triable issues of fact exist as to whether defendants failed to provide an adequate safety device to plaintiff in violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) or whether plaintiffs conduct was the sole proximate cause of his injuries.

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur in memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), judgment appealed from and order of the Appellate Division brought up for review modified, etc.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Grove v. Cornell University, 957 N.E.2d 1137, 17 N.Y.3d 875, 933 N.Y.S.2d 635, 2011 NY Slip Op 7258 (N.Y. 2011).

957 N.E.2d 1137 (Grove v. Cornell University) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Grove v. Cornell University
2017 NY Slip Op 4974 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
KUNTZ, SR., DAVID E. v. WNYG HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FUND CO.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013
Kuntz v. WNYG Housing Development Fund Co.
104 A.D.3d 1337 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
DECARLO, JUSTINE v. CLYDE BERGEMANN US, INC.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012
De Carlo v. Clyde Bergemann US, Inc.
91 A.D.3d 1290 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)