Mehmedagic v. New York University Medical Center

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mehmedagic v. New York University Medical Center

247 A.D.2d 256, 668 N.Y.S.2d 597, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1008

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

DecidedFebruary 10, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 247 A.D.2d 256 (Mehmedagic v. New York University Medical Center) 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

Mehmedagic v. New York University Medical Center, 247 A.D.2d 256, 668 N.Y.S.2d 597, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1008 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Goodman, J.), entered on or about April 2, 1997, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendant and third-party plaintiffs motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ cause of action under the Labor Law and denied third-party defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Issues of fact exist as to whether the employee was injured in the course of construction work on the structure (see, Martin v Back O'Beyond, 198 AD2d 479). The fixed ladder is arguably covered by Labor Law § 240, since there is some evidence that it was required for access to a roof-top work space (see, Szopinski v MJ Mech. Servs., 217 AD2d 906, appeals dismissed 87 NY2d 861; Kirchner v BRC Human Servs. Corp., 224 AD2d 270). Plaintiffs have satisfied the need for allegation of a specific, concrete provision of the Industrial Code to support a Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action (see, Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 NY2d 494, 505). We have considered the parties’ remaining arguments for affirmative relief and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Rubin and Tom, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Goodman, J.), entered on or about April 2, 1997, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendant and third-party plaintiffs motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ cause of action under the Labor Law and denied third-party defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Issues of fact exist as to whether the employee was injured in the course of construction work on the structure (see, Martin v Back O'Beyond, 198 AD2d 479). The fixed ladder is arguably covered by Labor Law § 240, since there is some evidence that it was required for access to a roof-top work space (see, Szopinski v MJ Mech. Servs., 217 AD2d 906, appeals dismissed 87 NY2d 861; Kirchner v BRC Human Servs. Corp., 224 AD2d 270). Plaintiffs have satisfied the need for allegation of a specific, concrete provision of the Industrial Code to support a Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action (see, Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 NY2d 494, 505). We have considered the parties’ remaining arguments for affirmative relief and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Rubin and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

247 A.D.2d 256, 668 N.Y.S.2d 597, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1008, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mehmedagic-v-new-york-university-medical-center-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack