Henry v. Edison

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Henry v. Edison

4 A.D.3d 129, 770 N.Y.S.2d 870, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1108

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

DecidedFebruary 5, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 4 A.D.3d 129 (Henry v. Edison) 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

Henry v. Edison, 4 A.D.3d 129, 770 N.Y.S.2d 870, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1108 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), entered on or about January 10, 2003, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants-respondents’ motions for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs cause of action under Labor Law § 241 (6), and denied plaintiffs cross motion for leave to supplement his bill of particulars so as to allege specific violations of the Industrial Code, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The cause of action under Labor Law § 241 (6) was properly dismissed since there was no demonstration that the violation of the sections of the Industrial Code relied upon proximately contributed to plaintiffs injuries. We have considered and rejected plaintiffs’ other arguments. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Ellerin and Williams, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), entered on or about January 10, 2003, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants-respondents’ motions for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs cause of action under Labor Law § 241 (6), and denied plaintiffs cross motion for leave to supplement his bill of particulars so as to allege specific violations of the Industrial Code, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The cause of action under Labor Law § 241 (6) was properly dismissed since there was no demonstration that the violation of the sections of the Industrial Code relied upon proximately contributed to plaintiffs injuries. We have considered and rejected plaintiffs’ other arguments. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Ellerin and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 A.D.3d 129, 770 N.Y.S.2d 870, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1108, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/henry-v-edison-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack