Knight v. Conopco, Inc.

216 A.D.2d 893, 629 N.Y.S.2d 697, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7209
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 9, 1995·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 because there is a question of fact whether the alleged violation of the statute was a proximate cause of the injuries allegedly sustained by David M. Knight (plaintiff) (see, Rossi v Main-South Hotel Assocs., 168 AD2d 964). The court did not abuse its discretion in granting in part the motions of defendant and third-party defendant to compel disclosure of video evidence concerning the entertainment activities of plaintiff after the date of the accident. (Appeals from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Siracuse, J.—Labor Law.) Present—Lawton, J. P., Fallon, Wesley, Davis and Boehm, JJ.

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

Knight v. Conopco, Inc., 216 A.D.2d 893, 629 N.Y.S.2d 697, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7209 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

216 A.D.2d 893 (Knight v. Conopco, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Pulsifer v. Eastman Kodak Co.
219 A.D.2d 880 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)