LaBoy v. Bethlehem Steel Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

LaBoy v. Bethlehem Steel Corp.

162 A.D.2d 960, 559 N.Y.S.2d 205, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9688

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

DecidedJune 22, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 162 A.D.2d 960 (LaBoy v. Bethlehem Steel 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

LaBoy v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 162 A.D.2d 960, 559 N.Y.S.2d 205, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9688 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment. On the record before us, it cannot be said that defendant established, as a matter of law, that plaintiff’s accident did not occur on defendant’s property or, assuming that the accident did occur on its property, that plaintiff’s use of the property was not foreseeable or that plaintiff’s negligence was the sole proximate cause of his injuries (see, Basso v Miller, 40 NY2d 233, 241). Further, General Obligations Law § 9-103 is not a bar to plaintiff’s action because defendant’s property is not "the sort which the Legislature would have envisioned as being open up to the public for recreational activities as a result of the inducement offered in the statute” (Iannotti v Consolidated Rail Corp., 74 NY2d 39, 45). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Mintz, J.—summary judgment.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Denman, Pine, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment. On the record before us, it cannot be said that defendant established, as a matter of law, that plaintiff’s accident did not occur on defendant’s property or, assuming that the accident did occur on its property, that plaintiff’s use of the property was not foreseeable or that plaintiff’s negligence was the sole proximate cause of his injuries (see, Basso v Miller, 40 NY2d 233, 241). Further, General Obligations Law § 9-103 is not a bar to plaintiff’s action because defendant’s property is not "the sort which the Legislature would have envisioned as being open up to the public for recreational activities as a result of the inducement offered in the statute” (Iannotti v Consolidated Rail Corp., 74 NY2d 39, 45). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Mintz, J.—summary judgment.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Denman, Pine, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

162 A.D.2d 960, 559 N.Y.S.2d 205, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9688, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/laboy-v-bethlehem-steel-corp-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack