LaRock v. KD International Development Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

LaRock v. KD International Development Corp.

277 A.D.2d 429, 716 N.Y.S.2d 601, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12272

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 27, 2000·Published

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Thomas, J.), dated June 20, 2000, as denied their motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability for violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). Issues of fact exist regarding whether the boards placed across an opening in the floor of the building under construction provided proper protection, and whether the actions of the injured plaintiff were the sole proximate cause of the accident (see, Lardaro v New York City Bldrs. Group, 271 AD2d 574; Bahrman v Holtsville Fire Dist., 270 AD2d 438). Ritter, J. P., Thompson, Friedmann, H. Miller and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Thomas, J.), dated June 20, 2000, as denied their motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability for violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). Issues of fact exist regarding whether the boards placed across an opening in the floor of the building under construction provided proper protection, and whether the actions of the injured plaintiff were the sole proximate cause of the accident (see, Lardaro v New York City Bldrs. Group, 271 AD2d 574; Bahrman v Holtsville Fire Dist., 270 AD2d 438). Ritter, J. P., Thompson, Friedmann, H. Miller and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

LaRock v. KD International Development Corp., 277 A.D.2d 429, 716 N.Y.S.2d 601, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12272 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

277 A.D.2d 429 (LaRock v. KD International Development Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related