MacDonald v. City of Niagara Falls

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

MacDonald v. City of Niagara Falls

275 A.D.2d 1035, 713 N.Y.S.2d 378, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9612

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

DecidedSeptember 29, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 275 A.D.2d 1035 (MacDonald v. City of Niagara Falls) 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

MacDonald v. City of Niagara Falls, 275 A.D.2d 1035, 713 N.Y.S.2d 378, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9612 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Plaintiffs commenced this action to recover damages for injuries David MacDonald (plaintiff) sustained during the construction of defendant’s water treatment plant. Supreme Court properly denied plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on liability on the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action and granted that part of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing that cause of action. Plaintiff’s slip and fall down a plywood ramp is not the type of elevation-related hazard contemplated by Labor Law § 240 (1) (see, Maggi v Innovax Methods Group Co., 250 AD2d 576, 577, lv denied 92 NY2d 819). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Joslin, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Green, J. P., Hayes, Wisner, Scudder and Lawton, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Plaintiffs commenced this action to recover damages for injuries David MacDonald (plaintiff) sustained during the construction of defendant’s water treatment plant. Supreme Court properly denied plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on liability on the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action and granted that part of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing that cause of action. Plaintiff’s slip and fall down a plywood ramp is not the type of elevation-related hazard contemplated by Labor Law § 240 (1) (see, Maggi v Innovax Methods Group Co., 250 AD2d 576, 577, lv denied 92 NY2d 819). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Joslin, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Green, J. P., Hayes, Wisner, Scudder and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

275 A.D.2d 1035, 713 N.Y.S.2d 378, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9612, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/macdonald-v-city-of-niagara-falls-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack