Madinya v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Madinya v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc.

202 A.D.2d 356, 609 N.Y.S.2d 17, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3012

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

DecidedMarch 29, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 202 A.D.2d 356 (Madinya v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, 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

Madinya v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc., 202 A.D.2d 356, 609 N.Y.S.2d 17, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3012 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.), entered on or about September 22, 1993, which, insofar as appealed from, denied plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment as against defendant Consolidated Edison, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff’s initial statement that he fell climbing the scaffold conflicts with the statement in his affidavit in support of the motion that he was standing on a scaffold when one of the planks came loose. Since plaintiff’s version of the accident is inconsistent with other versions in the record, as to a material issue, a triable question of fact has been presented (see, Carlos v Rochester Gen. Hosp., 163 AD2d 894). Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman, Rubin and Williams, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.), entered on or about September 22, 1993, which, insofar as appealed from, denied plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment as against defendant Consolidated Edison, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff’s initial statement that he fell climbing the scaffold conflicts with the statement in his affidavit in support of the motion that he was standing on a scaffold when one of the planks came loose. Since plaintiff’s version of the accident is inconsistent with other versions in the record, as to a material issue, a triable question of fact has been presented (see, Carlos v Rochester Gen. Hosp., 163 AD2d 894). Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman, Rubin and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

202 A.D.2d 356, 609 N.Y.S.2d 17, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3012, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/madinya-v-consolidated-edison-co-of-new-york-inc-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack