Mazzurco v. A.D. 1619 Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mazzurco v. A.D. 1619 Co.

260 A.D.2d 247, 688 N.Y.S.2d 527, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4170

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

DecidedApril 20, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 260 A.D.2d 247 (Mazzurco v. A.D. 1619 Co.) 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

Mazzurco v. A.D. 1619 Co., 260 A.D.2d 247, 688 N.Y.S.2d 527, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4170 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Elliott Wilk, J.), entered on or about February 20, 1998, which, insofar as appealed from, denied plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff, who was injured by a light fixture that fell from the ceiling while he was engaged in the demolition of the basement level of a building, was properly denied summary judgment under Labor Law § 240 (1) on the ground that there are questions of fact as to whether the accident was the result of an elevation-related hazard as contemplated by that statute, i.e., “a difference between the elevation level of the required work and a lower level or a difference between the elevation level where the worker is positioned and the higher level of the materials or load being hoisted or secured” (Rocovich v Consolidated Edison Co., 78 NY2d 509, 514). Concur — -Ellerin, P. J., Rosenberger, Andrias, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Elliott Wilk, J.), entered on or about February 20, 1998, which, insofar as appealed from, denied plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff, who was injured by a light fixture that fell from the ceiling while he was engaged in the demolition of the basement level of a building, was properly denied summary judgment under Labor Law § 240 (1) on the ground that there are questions of fact as to whether the accident was the result of an elevation-related hazard as contemplated by that statute, i.e., “a difference between the elevation level of the required work and a lower level or a difference between the elevation level where the worker is positioned and the higher level of the materials or load being hoisted or secured” (Rocovich v Consolidated Edison Co., 78 NY2d 509, 514). Concur — -Ellerin, P. J., Rosenberger, Andrias, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

260 A.D.2d 247, 688 N.Y.S.2d 527, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4170, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mazzurco-v-ad-1619-co-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack