Moller v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Moller v. City of New York

43 A.D.3d 371, 840 N.Y.S.2d 901

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

DecidedAugust 30, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 43 A.D.3d 371 (Moller 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

Moller v. City of New York, 43 A.D.3d 371, 840 N.Y.S.2d 901 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis B. York, J.), entered December 13, 2006, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on liability on their claim under Labor Law § 240 (1), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[372]*372Plaintiff worker was in the process of hoisting a two-ton structural piece from an elevated height to a platform. Before the piece could be placed and stabilized on the platform, the hoisting mechanism failed, causing injury to the worker. Under these circumstances, it is evident there was a violation of section 240 (1) (see e.g. Boyle v 42nd St. Dev. Project, Inc., 38 AD3d 404 [2007]). We further note the absence of evidence that the worker’s conduct was the .sole proximate cause of the accident. Concur—Tom, J.E, Andrias, Nardelli, Williams and Buckley, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis B. York, J.), entered December 13, 2006, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on liability on their claim under Labor Law § 240 (1), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[372]*372Plaintiff worker was in the process of hoisting a two-ton structural piece from an elevated height to a platform. Before the piece could be placed and stabilized on the platform, the hoisting mechanism failed, causing injury to the worker. Under these circumstances, it is evident there was a violation of section 240 (1) (see e.g. Boyle v 42nd St. Dev. Project, Inc., 38 AD3d 404 [2007]). We further note the absence of evidence that the worker’s conduct was the .sole proximate cause of the accident. Concur—Tom, J.E, Andrias, Nardelli, Williams and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 A.D.3d 371, 840 N.Y.S.2d 901, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moller-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack