McManus v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

McManus v. City of New York

142 A.D.3d 918, 37 N.Y.S.3d 883

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

DecidedSeptember 29, 2016

Docket1756 307029/12

StatusPublished

This text of 142 A.D.3d 918 (McManus v. City 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

McManus v. City of New York, 142 A.D.3d 918, 37 N.Y.S.3d 883 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County

(Fernando Tapia, J.), entered June 11, 2015, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of defendant’s Labor Law § 240 (1) liability, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and plaintiff’s motion denied.

Summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim was inappropriate, because questions of fact exist concerning whether a scaffold purportedly covering the opening of the flocculation tank through which plaintiff fell was a proper and adequate safety device (see Ortega v City of New York, 95 AD3d 125, 128 [1st Dept 2012]) and whether, if the scaffold was an adequate safety device, plaintiff removed the device by moving it away from the opening (see Boyd v Schiavone Constr. Co., Inc., 106 AD3d 546, 548 [1st Dept 2013]).

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Acosta, Saxe, Moskowitz and Gesmer, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2015 NY Slip Op 31176(U).]

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County

(Fernando Tapia, J.), entered June 11, 2015, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of defendant’s Labor Law § 240 (1) liability, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and plaintiff’s motion denied.

Summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim was inappropriate, because questions of fact exist concerning whether a scaffold purportedly covering the opening of the flocculation tank through which plaintiff fell was a proper and adequate safety device (see Ortega v City of New York, 95 AD3d 125, 128 [1st Dept 2012]) and whether, if the scaffold was an adequate safety device, plaintiff removed the device by moving it away from the opening (see Boyd v Schiavone Constr. Co., Inc., 106 AD3d 546, 548 [1st Dept 2013]).

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Acosta, Saxe, Moskowitz and Gesmer, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2015 NY Slip Op 31176(U).]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

142 A.D.3d 918, 37 N.Y.S.3d 883, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcmanus-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack