Karas v. Corning Hospital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Karas v. Corning Hospital

262 A.D.2d 1039, 692 N.Y.S.2d 626, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7266

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

DecidedJune 18, 1999

DocketAppeal No. 1

StatusPublished

This text of 262 A.D.2d 1039 (Karas v. Corning Hospital) 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

Karas v. Corning Hospital, 262 A.D.2d 1039, 692 N.Y.S.2d 626, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7266 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Because third-party defendant has failed to brief on appeal the issue whether Supreme Court erred in granting the cross motion of defendants-third-party plaintiffs for common-law indemnification against it, we deem that issue abandoned (see, Ciesinski v Town of Aurora, 202 AD2d 984).

The court erred in granting plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. There are issues of fact whether the scaffold was defective (see, Felker v Corning Inc., 90 NY2d 219, 224; Ghiandoni v City of Niagara Falls, 258 AD2d 923) and whether the conduct of plaintiff Timothy R. Karas was the sole proximate cause of the accident (see, Weininger v Hagedorn & Co., 91 NY2d 958, 960, rearg denied 92 NY2d 875; Mortellaro v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 259 AD2d 968). Thus, we modify the order by denying plaintiffs’ motion. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Steuben County, Scudder, J., for Purple, Jr., J., pursuant to CPLR 9002 — Summary Judgment.) Present— Denman, P. J., Pine, Wisner, Hurlbutt and Callahan, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Because third-party defendant has failed to brief on appeal the issue whether Supreme Court erred in granting the cross motion of defendants-third-party plaintiffs for common-law indemnification against it, we deem that issue abandoned (see, Ciesinski v Town of Aurora, 202 AD2d 984).

The court erred in granting plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. There are issues of fact whether the scaffold was defective (see, Felker v Corning Inc., 90 NY2d 219, 224; Ghiandoni v City of Niagara Falls, 258 AD2d 923) and whether the conduct of plaintiff Timothy R. Karas was the sole proximate cause of the accident (see, Weininger v Hagedorn & Co., 91 NY2d 958, 960, rearg denied 92 NY2d 875; Mortellaro v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 259 AD2d 968). Thus, we modify the order by denying plaintiffs’ motion. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Steuben County, Scudder, J., for Purple, Jr., J., pursuant to CPLR 9002 — Summary Judgment.) Present— Denman, P. J., Pine, Wisner, Hurlbutt and Callahan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D.2d 1039, 692 N.Y.S.2d 626, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7266, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/karas-v-corning-hospital-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack