Linn v. DeMayo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Linn v. DeMayo

252 A.D.2d 575, 675 N.Y.S.2d 304, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8645

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

DecidedJuly 27, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 252 A.D.2d 575 (Linn v. DeMayo) 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

Linn v. DeMayo, 252 A.D.2d 575, 675 N.Y.S.2d 304, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8645 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

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, Kings County (Kramer, J.), dated August 7, 1997, as (1) granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Mary L. DeMayo which was for summary judgment dismissing their second cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1), and (2) denied their cross motion for summary judgment on the second cause of action.

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

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action on the basis that the decedent was not engaged in “altering” a structure at the time of the accident (see, Joblon v Solow, 91 NY2d 457; Kesselbach v Liberty Haulage, 182 AD2d 741; cf, Malsch v City of New York, 232 AD2d 1). Thompson, J. P., Krausman, Friedmann and Luciano, 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, Kings County (Kramer, J.), dated August 7, 1997, as (1) granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Mary L. DeMayo which was for summary judgment dismissing their second cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1), and (2) denied their cross motion for summary judgment on the second cause of action.

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

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action on the basis that the decedent was not engaged in “altering” a structure at the time of the accident (see, Joblon v Solow, 91 NY2d 457; Kesselbach v Liberty Haulage, 182 AD2d 741; cf, Malsch v City of New York, 232 AD2d 1). Thompson, J. P., Krausman, Friedmann and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

252 A.D.2d 575, 675 N.Y.S.2d 304, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8645, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/linn-v-demayo-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack