Meehan v. Mobil Oil Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Meehan v. Mobil Oil Corp.

201 A.D.2d 951, 610 N.Y.S.2d 907, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2141

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

DecidedFebruary 4, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 201 A.D.2d 951 (Meehan v. Mobil Oil Corp.) 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

Meehan v. Mobil Oil Corp., 201 A.D.2d 951, 610 N.Y.S.2d 907, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2141 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed with costs to plaintiffs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Factual issues exist whether defendant Mutlu, the lessee of the premises, provided the ladder involved in this incident, whether the ladder was defective, and whether the accident was caused by the ladder, the alleged slippery condition of the floor, or a combination of both. Thus, Supreme Court erred in dismissing the common-law negligence causes of action asserted against Mutlu and defendant Mobil Oil Corp., the owner of the premises. We modify the order to reinstate those causes of action.

Supreme Court properly granted summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action against Mobil and Mutlu (see, Gibson v Worthington Div., 78 NY2d 1108, 1109; Mordkofsky v V.C.V. Dev. Corp., 76 NY2d 573, 577; Meehan v Mobil Oil Corp., 184 AD2d 1021, 1022, lv dismissed 80 NY2d 925). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Siracuse, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Den-man, P. J., Green, Balio, Lawton and Boehm, JJ.

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

Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed with costs to plaintiffs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Factual issues exist whether defendant Mutlu, the lessee of the premises, provided the ladder involved in this incident, whether the ladder was defective, and whether the accident was caused by the ladder, the alleged slippery condition of the floor, or a combination of both. Thus, Supreme Court erred in dismissing the common-law negligence causes of action asserted against Mutlu and defendant Mobil Oil Corp., the owner of the premises. We modify the order to reinstate those causes of action.

Supreme Court properly granted summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action against Mobil and Mutlu (see, Gibson v Worthington Div., 78 NY2d 1108, 1109; Mordkofsky v V.C.V. Dev. Corp., 76 NY2d 573, 577; Meehan v Mobil Oil Corp., 184 AD2d 1021, 1022, lv dismissed 80 NY2d 925). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Siracuse, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Den-man, P. J., Green, Balio, Lawton and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

201 A.D.2d 951, 610 N.Y.S.2d 907, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2141, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meehan-v-mobil-oil-corp-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack