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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 22, 1990·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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.

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

162 A.D.2d 960 (LaBoy v. Bethlehem Steel Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related