Hayes v. Eastman Kodak Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hayes v. Eastman Kodak Co.

143 A.D.2d 510, 533 N.Y.S.2d 43, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10750

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

DecidedSeptember 27, 1988

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 143 A.D.2d 510 (Hayes v. Eastman Kodak 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

Hayes v. Eastman Kodak Co., 143 A.D.2d 510, 533 N.Y.S.2d 43, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10750 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously reversed [511]*511on the law with costs and motion granted, in accordance with the following memorandum: The uncontroverted evidence in support of plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability establishes that the safety devices provided to plaintiff were inadequate for the work he was directed to perform. The line attached to plaintiffs safety belt was too short to provide protection while he was moving from one work station to another (see, Conway v New York State Teachers’ Retirement Sys., 141 AD2d 957). Thus, as a matter of law, defendant owner violated its duty under Labor Law § 240 and partial summary judgment should have been granted in favor of plaintiff. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Cornelius, J. — partial summary judgment.) Present— Callahan, J. P., Denman, Boomer, Balio and Davis, JJ.

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

Order unanimously reversed [511]*511on the law with costs and motion granted, in accordance with the following memorandum: The uncontroverted evidence in support of plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability establishes that the safety devices provided to plaintiff were inadequate for the work he was directed to perform. The line attached to plaintiffs safety belt was too short to provide protection while he was moving from one work station to another (see, Conway v New York State Teachers’ Retirement Sys., 141 AD2d 957). Thus, as a matter of law, defendant owner violated its duty under Labor Law § 240 and partial summary judgment should have been granted in favor of plaintiff. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Cornelius, J. — partial summary judgment.) Present— Callahan, J. P., Denman, Boomer, Balio and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

143 A.D.2d 510, 533 N.Y.S.2d 43, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10750, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hayes-v-eastman-kodak-co-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack