Largotta v. Recife Realty Co.
This text of 254 A.D.2d 225 (Largotta v. Recife Realty 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.
Opinion
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Huff, J.), entered on or about January 9, 1998, which, insofar as appealed from, denied plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Issues of fact exist, including whether plaintiff’s injuries were caused by his alleged fall from an unsteady ladder or whether they resulted from his repetitive use of a shotgun nailing machine. We need not reach the question whether various reports, unsworn but arguably containing admissions against plaintiff’s interest, constituted evidence in admissible form (cf., Ferrara v Poranski, 88 AD2d 904; Schanberg v State of New York, 30 AD2d 712), because “evidence, otherwise excludable at trial, may be considered to deny a motion for summary judgment provided that this evidence does not form the sole basis for the court’s determination” (Wertheimer v New [226]*226York Prop. Ins. Underwriting Assn., 85 AD2d 540, 541). Concur — Lerner, P. J., Milonas, Ellerin, Rubin and Williams, JJ.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
254 A.D.2d 225, 679 N.Y.S.2d 141, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11421, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/largotta-v-recife-realty-co-nyappdiv-1998.