Marquez v. Trustees of Columbia University

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Marquez v. Trustees of Columbia University

95 A.D.3d 588, 943 N.Y.S.2d 750

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

DecidedMay 10, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 95 A.D.3d 588 (Marquez v. Trustees of Columbia University) 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

Marquez v. Trustees of Columbia University, 95 A.D.3d 588, 943 N.Y.S.2d 750 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan A. Madden, J.), entered December 12, 2011, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), and denied defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the § 240 (1) claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff established his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Plaintiff submitted, inter alia, his deposition testimony and his affidavit showing that he was working on an A-frame ladder plastering a ceiling when the ladder became unstable and tipped, causing him to fall to the floor (see Siegel v RRG Fort Greene, Inc., 68 AD3d 675 [2009]; Orellano v 29 E. 37th St. Realty Corp., 292 AD2d 289 [2002]). In opposition, defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Concur — Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, DeGrasse, Abdus-Salaam and Román, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2011 NY Slip Op 33182(U).]

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan A. Madden, J.), entered December 12, 2011, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), and denied defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the § 240 (1) claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff established his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Plaintiff submitted, inter alia, his deposition testimony and his affidavit showing that he was working on an A-frame ladder plastering a ceiling when the ladder became unstable and tipped, causing him to fall to the floor (see Siegel v RRG Fort Greene, Inc., 68 AD3d 675 [2009]; Orellano v 29 E. 37th St. Realty Corp., 292 AD2d 289 [2002]). In opposition, defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Concur — Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, DeGrasse, Abdus-Salaam and Román, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2011 NY Slip Op 33182(U).]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

95 A.D.3d 588, 943 N.Y.S.2d 750, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marquez-v-trustees-of-columbia-university-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack