McRae v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.

2 A.D.3d 419, 767 N.Y.S.2d 799
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 1, 2003
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 2 A.D.3d 419 (McRae v. Sears, Roebuck & 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
McRae v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 2 A.D.3d 419, 767 N.Y.S.2d 799 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golar, J.), dated October 24, 2002, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The plaintiff allegedly sustained personal injuries when she fell from a defective ladder provided to her by the defendant in order for the plaintiff to do an inventory of certain merchandise at the defendant’s store. The Supreme Court denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. We reverse.

In support of its motion, the defendant presented competent evidence in admissible form that collateral estoppel effect should be given to a determination of the Workers’ Compensation Board, made after proceedings to which the plaintiff was a party, finding that she had failed to demonstrate that the injuries at issue herein arose from the fall from the ladder (see Ryan v New York Tel. Co., 62 NY2d 494, 499 [1984]; Werner v State of New [420]*420York, 53 NY2d 346 [1981]; O’Connor v Midiria, 55 NY2d 538 [1982]; Rigopolous v American Museum of Natural History, 297 AD2d 728, 729 [2002]; cf. Caiola v Allcity Ins. Co., 257 AD2d 586, 587 [1999]; Langdon v WEN Mgt. Co., 147 AD2d 450, 452 [1989]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see e.g. Caiola v Allcity Ins. Co., supra at 587). Accordingly, the defendant is entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]; Dorkin v American Express Co., 43 AD2d 877 [1974]). Ritter, J.P., Smith, Friedmann, H. Miller and Crane, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Lennon v. 56th & Park(NY) Owner, LLC
2021 NY Slip Op 04972 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Emanuel v. MMI Mechanical, Inc.
131 A.D.3d 1002 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Twaddell v. Drop & Lock Storage Co.
117 A.D.3d 937 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Santo D'Angelo v. State Insurance Fund
48 A.D.3d 400 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Chunqi Liu v. Wong
46 A.D.3d 735 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2 A.D.3d 419, 767 N.Y.S.2d 799, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcrae-v-sears-roebuck-co-nyappdiv-2003.