Manon v. Wallen

201 A.D.2d 367, 607 N.Y.S.2d 337, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1317
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 15, 1994
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 201 A.D.2d 367 (Manon v. Wallen) 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
Manon v. Wallen, 201 A.D.2d 367, 607 N.Y.S.2d 337, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1317 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.), entered January 27, 1993, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, denied plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment and dismissed the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this action for personal injury brought pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 200 (1) and under common law negligence principles, plaintiff, a wireless cable television installer, was injured when he fell from the roof of defendants’ semi-detached dwelling into an alleyway between defendants’ dwelling and their neighbor’s. The evidence submitted on the motion and cross-motion establishes that defendants’ dwelling was a two-family private residence and that there was neither direction nor control of plaintiffs work by any of the defendants, thus exempting defendants from liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1).

The risks and danger with respect to the hatch opening were obvious and comprehensible through ordinary and reasonable care and inspection. Defendants, even if they were aware of the proximity of the hatch opening to the edge of the roof, had no duty to warn plaintiff, a professional cable television installer whose job took him to roofs every day (McLean v Studebaker Bros. Co., 221 NY 475; Employers Mut. Liab. Ins. Co. v Di Cesare & Monaco Concrete Constr. Corp., 9 AD2d 379, 385 [1st Dept 1959]). Thus, plaintiff has failed to make the requisite showing to sustain either a Labor Law [368]*368§ 200 (1) or common law negligence claim. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Asch, Rubin, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

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

Related

Robertson v. East Side Glass Co.
17 A.D.3d 238 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Brezinski v. Olympia & York Water Street Co.
218 A.D.2d 633 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
201 A.D.2d 367, 607 N.Y.S.2d 337, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1317, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/manon-v-wallen-nyappdiv-1994.