Muscarella v. Herbert Construction Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Muscarella v. Herbert Construction Co.

265 A.D.2d 264, 697 N.Y.S.2d 35, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10884

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

DecidedOctober 28, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 265 A.D.2d 264 (Muscarella v. Herbert Construction Co.) 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

Muscarella v. Herbert Construction Co., 265 A.D.2d 264, 697 N.Y.S.2d 35, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10884 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lorraine Miller, J.), entered July 29, 1998, which, insofar as appealed from, granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s cause of action under Labor Law § 241 (6), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-1.7 (e) (1) and (2) were correctly held to be inapplicable to plaintiff’s claim, which alleges an injury sustained while walking from the job site to a construction trailer as a result of tripping over the ledge of a metal grate that surrounded a tree two feet away from the temporary steps of the trailer. This open area did not constitute the sort of passageway, floor, platform, or similar working surface contemplated by the cited regulations (see, Jennings v Lefcon Partnership, 250 AD2d 388, 389, lv denied 92 NY2d 819; see also, Lenard v 1251 Ams. Assocs., 241 AD2d 391, 392). Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Nardelli, Lerner, Andrias and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lorraine Miller, J.), entered July 29, 1998, which, insofar as appealed from, granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s cause of action under Labor Law § 241 (6), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-1.7 (e) (1) and (2) were correctly held to be inapplicable to plaintiff’s claim, which alleges an injury sustained while walking from the job site to a construction trailer as a result of tripping over the ledge of a metal grate that surrounded a tree two feet away from the temporary steps of the trailer. This open area did not constitute the sort of passageway, floor, platform, or similar working surface contemplated by the cited regulations (see, Jennings v Lefcon Partnership, 250 AD2d 388, 389, lv denied 92 NY2d 819; see also, Lenard v 1251 Ams. Assocs., 241 AD2d 391, 392). Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Nardelli, Lerner, Andrias and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

265 A.D.2d 264, 697 N.Y.S.2d 35, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10884, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/muscarella-v-herbert-construction-co-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack