Langlois v. Flame Cutsteel Products, Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Langlois v. Flame Cutsteel Products, Co.

61 A.D.3d 614, 876 N.Y.S.2d 869

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

DecidedApril 30, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 61 A.D.3d 614 (Langlois v. Flame Cutsteel Products, Co.) 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

Langlois v. Flame Cutsteel Products, Co., 61 A.D.3d 614, 876 N.Y.S.2d 869 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Dominic R. Massaro, J.), entered June 27, 2008, which, in an action for personal injuries when an 800-pound steel plate that plaintiff was unloading from a truck fell and struck his leg, denied the motion by defendant Flame Cutsteel Products, Co. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Flame, whose employees loaded the steel plate onto the truck, had a duty to load it safely (cf. Moncion v Infra-Metals Corp., Div. of Preussag Intl. Co., 20 AD3d 310, 311-312 [2005]), and clear issues of fact exist as to whether they did. We have considered and rejected defendant-appellant’s other arguments. Concur—Gonzalez, P.J., Tom, Sweeny, Buckley and Acosta, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Dominic R. Massaro, J.), entered June 27, 2008, which, in an action for personal injuries when an 800-pound steel plate that plaintiff was unloading from a truck fell and struck his leg, denied the motion by defendant Flame Cutsteel Products, Co. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Flame, whose employees loaded the steel plate onto the truck, had a duty to load it safely (cf. Moncion v Infra-Metals Corp., Div. of Preussag Intl. Co., 20 AD3d 310, 311-312 [2005]), and clear issues of fact exist as to whether they did. We have considered and rejected defendant-appellant’s other arguments. Concur—Gonzalez, P.J., Tom, Sweeny, Buckley and Acosta, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 A.D.3d 614, 876 N.Y.S.2d 869, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/langlois-v-flame-cutsteel-products-co-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack