Nunez v. Bertelsman Property, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Nunez v. Bertelsman Property, Inc.

304 A.D.2d 487, 758 N.Y.S.2d 643, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4479

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

DecidedApril 29, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 304 A.D.2d 487 (Nunez v. Bertelsman Property, Inc.) 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

Nunez v. Bertelsman Property, Inc., 304 A.D.2d 487, 758 N.Y.S.2d 643, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4479 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Dianne Renwick, J.), entered March 26, 2002, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the brief, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs [488]*488Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and granted plaintiffs cross motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability upon his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Inasmuch as the evidence demonstrates that plaintiff fell down a staircase without handrails connecting two levels of scaffolding, there is no question that his injuries were at least partially attributable to defendant’s failure to take statutorily mandated safety measures to protect him from risks arising from an elevation differential, and thus that grounds for the imposition of liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1) were established (see Boss v Integral Constr. Corp., 249 AD2d 214 [1998]). That plaintiffs fall may also have been attributable to the presence of cleaning liquid on the staircase does not take the case out of the ambit of Labor Law § 240 (1) or create any triable issue as to whether defendant is liable thereunder (see Rizzo v Hellman Elec. Corp., 281 AD2d 258 [2001]; Murphy v Islat Assoc. Graft Hat Mfg. Co., 237 AD2d 166 [1997]; Robinson v NAB Constr. Corp., 210 AD2d 86 [1994]). Concur — Buckley, P.J., Mazzarelli, Ellerin, Williams and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Dianne Renwick, J.), entered March 26, 2002, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the brief, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs [488]*488Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and granted plaintiffs cross motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability upon his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Inasmuch as the evidence demonstrates that plaintiff fell down a staircase without handrails connecting two levels of scaffolding, there is no question that his injuries were at least partially attributable to defendant’s failure to take statutorily mandated safety measures to protect him from risks arising from an elevation differential, and thus that grounds for the imposition of liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1) were established (see Boss v Integral Constr. Corp., 249 AD2d 214 [1998]). That plaintiffs fall may also have been attributable to the presence of cleaning liquid on the staircase does not take the case out of the ambit of Labor Law § 240 (1) or create any triable issue as to whether defendant is liable thereunder (see Rizzo v Hellman Elec. Corp., 281 AD2d 258 [2001]; Murphy v Islat Assoc. Graft Hat Mfg. Co., 237 AD2d 166 [1997]; Robinson v NAB Constr. Corp., 210 AD2d 86 [1994]). Concur — Buckley, P.J., Mazzarelli, Ellerin, Williams and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

304 A.D.2d 487, 758 N.Y.S.2d 643, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4479, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nunez-v-bertelsman-property-inc-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack