Hutzler v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hutzler v. State

282 A.D.2d 503, 722 N.Y.S.2d 772, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3506

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

DecidedApril 9, 2001

DocketClaim No. 95643

StatusPublished

This text of 282 A.D.2d 503 (Hutzler v. State) 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

Hutzler v. State, 282 A.D.2d 503, 722 N.Y.S.2d 772, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3506 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a claim to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the claimants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Court of Claims (Silverman, J.), entered May 1, 2000, as denied that branch of their motion which was for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability on their cause of action under Labor Law § 240 (1), and granted that branch of the defendant’s cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing that cause of action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the injured claimant’s contention, his injuries did not result from an elevation-related hazard within the meaning of Labor Law § 240 (1) (see, Thompson v Ludovico, 246 AD2d 642). Bracken, P. J., S. Miller, McGinity and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

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

—In a claim to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the claimants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Court of Claims (Silverman, J.), entered May 1, 2000, as denied that branch of their motion which was for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability on their cause of action under Labor Law § 240 (1), and granted that branch of the defendant’s cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing that cause of action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the injured claimant’s contention, his injuries did not result from an elevation-related hazard within the meaning of Labor Law § 240 (1) (see, Thompson v Ludovico, 246 AD2d 642). Bracken, P. J., S. Miller, McGinity and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D.2d 503, 722 N.Y.S.2d 772, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3506, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hutzler-v-state-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack