Joseph v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Joseph v. City of New York

2016 NY Slip Op 6649, 143 A.D.3d 489, 38 N.Y.S.3d 556

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

DecidedOctober 11, 2016

Docket1689 153735/12

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 2016 NY Slip Op 6649 (Joseph v. City of New York) 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

Joseph v. City of New York, 2016 NY Slip Op 6649, 143 A.D.3d 489, 38 N.Y.S.3d 556 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael D. Stall-man, J.), entered May 8, 2015, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, and granted plaintiffs’ cross motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability on that claim, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted, the cross motion denied, and the complaint dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

*490 Plaintiff Lindy Joseph was struck by a pipe while it was being flushed clean with a highly pressurized mixture of air, water, and a rubber “rabbit” device. The movement of this mixture through the pipe failed to bring the mechanism of plaintiffs injury within the ambit of section 240 (1) because it did not involve “the direct consequence of the application of the force of gravity to an object” (Gasques v State of New York, 15 NY3d 869, 870 [2010]). The mixture in the pipe did not move through the exercise of the force of gravity, but was rather intentionally propelled through the pipe through the use of high pressure (see Medina v City of New York, 87 AD3d 907, 909 [1st Dept 2011] [subway rail that struck and hit the plaintiff “was propelled by the kinetic energy of the sudden release of tensile stress . . . not the result of the effects of gravity”]; see also Smith v New York State Elec. & Gas Corp., 82 NY2d 781 [1993]).

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, Andrias, Webber and Gesmer, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael D. Stall-man, J.), entered May 8, 2015, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, and granted plaintiffs’ cross motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability on that claim, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted, the cross motion denied, and the complaint dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

*490 Plaintiff Lindy Joseph was struck by a pipe while it was being flushed clean with a highly pressurized mixture of air, water, and a rubber “rabbit” device. The movement of this mixture through the pipe failed to bring the mechanism of plaintiffs injury within the ambit of section 240 (1) because it did not involve “the direct consequence of the application of the force of gravity to an object” (Gasques v State of New York, 15 NY3d 869, 870 [2010]). The mixture in the pipe did not move through the exercise of the force of gravity, but was rather intentionally propelled through the pipe through the use of high pressure (see Medina v City of New York, 87 AD3d 907, 909 [1st Dept 2011] [subway rail that struck and hit the plaintiff “was propelled by the kinetic energy of the sudden release of tensile stress . . . not the result of the effects of gravity”]; see also Smith v New York State Elec. & Gas Corp., 82 NY2d 781 [1993]).

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, Andrias, Webber and Gesmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2016 NY Slip Op 6649, 143 A.D.3d 489, 38 N.Y.S.3d 556, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joseph-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack