Kulis v. Xerox Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kulis v. Xerox Corp.

231 A.D.2d 922, 647 N.Y.S.2d 632, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10815

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

DecidedSeptember 27, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 231 A.D.2d 922 (Kulis v. Xerox 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

Kulis v. Xerox Corp., 231 A.D.2d 922, 647 N.Y.S.2d 632, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10815 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Plaintiffs appeal from an order insofar as it granted the motion of defendant The Pike Company for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action under Labor Law § 241 (6). To prevail on that cause of action, plaintiffs must establish a violation of a specific safety regulation promulgated by the Commissioner of the Department of Labor (see, Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 NY2d 494, 505). Plaintiffs have not established a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (e) (1) because that paragraph applies to passageways and the accident did not take place in a passageway (see, Adams v Glass Fab, 212 AD2d 972, 973). Plaintiffs also [923]*923have not established a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (e) (2) because that paragraph requires that floors or other work areas be kept free from the accumulation of dirt and debris, and from scattered tools and materials and sharp projections; the accident in this case allegedly was caused by the temporary protective flooring itself {see, Adams v Glass Fab, supra, at 973). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Galloway, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Green, J. P., Pine, Wesley, Davis and Boehm, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Plaintiffs appeal from an order insofar as it granted the motion of defendant The Pike Company for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action under Labor Law § 241 (6). To prevail on that cause of action, plaintiffs must establish a violation of a specific safety regulation promulgated by the Commissioner of the Department of Labor (see, Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 NY2d 494, 505). Plaintiffs have not established a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (e) (1) because that paragraph applies to passageways and the accident did not take place in a passageway (see, Adams v Glass Fab, 212 AD2d 972, 973). Plaintiffs also [923]*923have not established a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (e) (2) because that paragraph requires that floors or other work areas be kept free from the accumulation of dirt and debris, and from scattered tools and materials and sharp projections; the accident in this case allegedly was caused by the temporary protective flooring itself {see, Adams v Glass Fab, supra, at 973). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Galloway, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Green, J. P., Pine, Wesley, Davis and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

231 A.D.2d 922, 647 N.Y.S.2d 632, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10815, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kulis-v-xerox-corp-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack