Koschak v. Gates Construction Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Koschak v. Gates Construction Corp.

200 A.D.2d 351, 608 N.Y.S.2d 67

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

DecidedJanuary 4, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 200 A.D.2d 351 (Koschak v. Gates Construction Corp.) 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

Koschak v. Gates Construction Corp., 200 A.D.2d 351, 608 N.Y.S.2d 67 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Salman, J.), entered on or about May 17, 1993, which, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment dismissing the first two causes of action and for dismissal of the fourth cause of action in its entirety, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In light of the unresolved factual questions regarding, inter alia, the status of the barge upon which plaintiff worked at the time he was injured, and the nature of plaintiffs duties of employment, summary judgment dismissal of the first two causes of action seeking recovery pursuant to the Jones Act was unwarranted (see, McDermott Intl, v Wilander, 498 US 337; Southwest Mar. v Gizoni, 502 US 81, 112 S Ct 486; Offshore Co. v Robison, 266 F2d 769).

We have considered all other claims and find them to be meritless. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Carro, Kupferman and Nardelli, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Salman, J.), entered on or about May 17, 1993, which, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment dismissing the first two causes of action and for dismissal of the fourth cause of action in its entirety, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In light of the unresolved factual questions regarding, inter alia, the status of the barge upon which plaintiff worked at the time he was injured, and the nature of plaintiffs duties of employment, summary judgment dismissal of the first two causes of action seeking recovery pursuant to the Jones Act was unwarranted (see, McDermott Intl, v Wilander, 498 US 337; Southwest Mar. v Gizoni, 502 US 81, 112 S Ct 486; Offshore Co. v Robison, 266 F2d 769).

We have considered all other claims and find them to be meritless. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Carro, Kupferman and Nardelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

200 A.D.2d 351, 608 N.Y.S.2d 67, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/koschak-v-gates-construction-corp-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack