Hollosi v. 340 East 93rd Street Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hollosi v. 340 East 93rd Street Corp.

282 A.D.2d 651, 723 N.Y.S.2d 697, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3988

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

DecidedApril 23, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 282 A.D.2d 651 (Hollosi v. 340 East 93rd Street 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

Hollosi v. 340 East 93rd Street Corp., 282 A.D.2d 651, 723 N.Y.S.2d 697, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3988 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated June 8, 2000, which denied his motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability based on Labor Law § 240 (1) and, upon searching the record, granted summary judgment to the defendant dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The work performed by the plaintiff, which involved replacing gaskets on a steam valve, did not constitute repair work encompassed by Labor Law § 240 (1) (see, Jehle v Adams Hotel Assocs., 264 AD2d 354; Urbano v Plaza Materials Corp., 262 AD2d 307; see also, Koch v E.C.H. Holding Corp., 248 AD2d 510, 511). Accordingly, the Supreme Court, upon searching the record, properly granted summary judgment to the defendant dismissing the complaint. O’Brien, J. P., Altman, McGinity and H. Miller, 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, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated June 8, 2000, which denied his motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability based on Labor Law § 240 (1) and, upon searching the record, granted summary judgment to the defendant dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The work performed by the plaintiff, which involved replacing gaskets on a steam valve, did not constitute repair work encompassed by Labor Law § 240 (1) (see, Jehle v Adams Hotel Assocs., 264 AD2d 354; Urbano v Plaza Materials Corp., 262 AD2d 307; see also, Koch v E.C.H. Holding Corp., 248 AD2d 510, 511). Accordingly, the Supreme Court, upon searching the record, properly granted summary judgment to the defendant dismissing the complaint. O’Brien, J. P., Altman, McGinity and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D.2d 651, 723 N.Y.S.2d 697, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3988, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hollosi-v-340-east-93rd-street-corp-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack