Morrison v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Morrison v. City of New York

306 A.D.2d 86, 759 N.Y.S.2d 863, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6427

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

DecidedJune 10, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 306 A.D.2d 86 (Morrison 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

Morrison v. City of New York, 306 A.D.2d 86, 759 N.Y.S.2d 863, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6427 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Faviola Soto, J.), entered February 10, 2003, which, in an action for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff laborer when he fell while descending a scaffold, granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as to liability on his cause of action under Labor Law § 240 (1), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants’ liability was established as a matter of law by the fact that the scaffold they provided plaintiff, which admittedly had no guard rails, safety nets or lifelines, did not prevent plaintiff from falling (see Laquidara v HRH Constr. Corp., 283 AD2d 169 [2001], citing, inter alia, Gordon v Eastern Ry. Supply, 82 NY2d 555, 561-562 [1993]). It does not avail defendants to assert that plaintiff did not use the ladder they provided to go up and down the scaffold, absent evidence that plaintiff disregarded an immediate, specific instruction to use the ladder (see Smizaski v 784 Park Ave. Realty, 264 AD2d 364, 367 [1999]; Crespo v Triad, Inc., 294 AD2d 145, 147 [2002]). We [87]*87have considered defendants’ other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Tom, Andrias and Lerner, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Faviola Soto, J.), entered February 10, 2003, which, in an action for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff laborer when he fell while descending a scaffold, granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as to liability on his cause of action under Labor Law § 240 (1), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants’ liability was established as a matter of law by the fact that the scaffold they provided plaintiff, which admittedly had no guard rails, safety nets or lifelines, did not prevent plaintiff from falling (see Laquidara v HRH Constr. Corp., 283 AD2d 169 [2001], citing, inter alia, Gordon v Eastern Ry. Supply, 82 NY2d 555, 561-562 [1993]). It does not avail defendants to assert that plaintiff did not use the ladder they provided to go up and down the scaffold, absent evidence that plaintiff disregarded an immediate, specific instruction to use the ladder (see Smizaski v 784 Park Ave. Realty, 264 AD2d 364, 367 [1999]; Crespo v Triad, Inc., 294 AD2d 145, 147 [2002]). We [87]*87have considered defendants’ other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Tom, Andrias and Lerner, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

306 A.D.2d 86, 759 N.Y.S.2d 863, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6427, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morrison-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack