Librizzi v. Ramada, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Librizzi v. Ramada, Inc.

309 A.D.2d 789, 765 N.Y.S.2d 799

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

DecidedOctober 14, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 309 A.D.2d 789 (Librizzi v. Ramada, Inc.) 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

Librizzi v. Ramada, Inc., 309 A.D.2d 789, 765 N.Y.S.2d 799 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Baisley, J.), dated October 1, 2002, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendants Ramada, Inc., and Ramada Franchise Systems, Inc., which was for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action insofar as asserted against them.

[790]*790Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Since there are no triable issues of fact, the respondents were entitled to summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action insofar as asserted against them. Santucci, J.P., Krausman, Schmidt and Rivera, 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, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Baisley, J.), dated October 1, 2002, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendants Ramada, Inc., and Ramada Franchise Systems, Inc., which was for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action insofar as asserted against them.

[790]*790Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Since there are no triable issues of fact, the respondents were entitled to summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action insofar as asserted against them. Santucci, J.P., Krausman, Schmidt and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

309 A.D.2d 789, 765 N.Y.S.2d 799, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/librizzi-v-ramada-inc-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack