Martin v. State of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Martin v. State of New York

2017 NY Slip Op 1651, 148 A.D.3d 439, 47 N.Y.S.3d 904

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

DecidedMarch 7, 2017

Docket3327 123068

StatusPublished

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 1651 (Martin v. State of New York) 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

Martin v. State of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 1651, 148 A.D.3d 439, 47 N.Y.S.3d 904 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Court of Claims of the State of New York (David A. Weinstein, J.), entered June 16, 2016, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied the branch of respondent State of New York’s motion for summary judgment that sought dismissal of claimant’s Labor Law § 241 (6) claims predicated on violations of Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) §§ 23-2.3 (c); 23-8.2 (c) (3) and 23-8.1 (f) (2) (i), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The Court of Claims correctly decided that an issue of fact exists concerning whether the State provided tag lines for claimant’s use in moving the steel I-beam across the Alexander Hamilton Bridge and whether the absence of tag lines was a proximate cause of claimant’s injury (see Rizzuto v L.A. Wenger Contr. Co., 91 NY2d 343, 350 [1998]).

Concur — Acosta, J.R, Richter, Manzanet-Daniels, Gische and Webber, JJ.

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

Order, Court of Claims of the State of New York (David A. Weinstein, J.), entered June 16, 2016, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied the branch of respondent State of New York’s motion for summary judgment that sought dismissal of claimant’s Labor Law § 241 (6) claims predicated on violations of Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) §§ 23-2.3 (c); 23-8.2 (c) (3) and 23-8.1 (f) (2) (i), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The Court of Claims correctly decided that an issue of fact exists concerning whether the State provided tag lines for claimant’s use in moving the steel I-beam across the Alexander Hamilton Bridge and whether the absence of tag lines was a proximate cause of claimant’s injury (see Rizzuto v L.A. Wenger Contr. Co., 91 NY2d 343, 350 [1998]).

Concur — Acosta, J.R, Richter, Manzanet-Daniels, Gische and Webber, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 1651, 148 A.D.3d 439, 47 N.Y.S.3d 904, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martin-v-state-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack