Holly v. County of Chautauqua

New York Court of Appeals

Holly v. County of Chautauqua

922 N.E.2d 897, 13 N.Y.3d 931, 895 N.Y.S.2d 308, 2010 NY Slip Op 365

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 19, 2010

Docket61 SSM 58

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 922 N.E.2d 897 (Holly v. County of Chautauqua) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Holly v. County of Chautauqua, 922 N.E.2d 897, 13 N.Y.3d 931, 895 N.Y.S.2d 308, 2010 NY Slip Op 365 (N.Y. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division, insofar as appealed from, should be reversed, with costs, and plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment as to liability on their Labor Law § 240 (1) claim denied. The certified question should be answered in the negative.

While we agree with the Appellate Division that there are no questions of fact regarding proximate cause, triable issues of fact do exist as to whether the scaffolding defendants supplied provided proper protection under Labor Law § 240 (1) (see Blake v Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of N.Y. City, 1 NY3d 280, 288 [2003]; Davis v Brunswick, 52 AD3d 1231, 1232 [4th Dept 2008]).

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), order, insofar as appealed from, reversed, etc.

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