Moreta v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Moreta v. State

272 A.D.2d 593, 709 N.Y.S.2d 829

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

DecidedMay 30, 2000

DocketClaim No. 97287

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 272 A.D.2d 593 (Moreta v. State) 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

Moreta v. State, 272 A.D.2d 593, 709 N.Y.S.2d 829 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a claim to recover damages for personal injuries pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1), the defendant appeals from an order of the Court of Claims (Ruderman, J,), dated August 13, 1999, which granted the claimant’s motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is denied.

The claimant failed to establish, as a matter of law, that the defendant violated Labor Law § 240 (1). Where a claimant is injured from a fall from a ladder which is not shown to be defective, the issue of whether the ladder provided the claimant with the proper protection required under this statute is a question for the jury (see, Benefield v Halmar Corp., 264 AD2d 794). Joy, J. P., Thompson, Goldstein and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

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

—In a claim to recover damages for personal injuries pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1), the defendant appeals from an order of the Court of Claims (Ruderman, J,), dated August 13, 1999, which granted the claimant’s motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is denied.

The claimant failed to establish, as a matter of law, that the defendant violated Labor Law § 240 (1). Where a claimant is injured from a fall from a ladder which is not shown to be defective, the issue of whether the ladder provided the claimant with the proper protection required under this statute is a question for the jury (see, Benefield v Halmar Corp., 264 AD2d 794). Joy, J. P., Thompson, Goldstein and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 593, 709 N.Y.S.2d 829, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moreta-v-state-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack