Nunez v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Nunez v. City of New York

69 A.D.3d 696, 891 N.Y.2d 663

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

DecidedJanuary 12, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 69 A.D.3d 696 (Nunez 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

Nunez v. City of New York, 69 A.D.3d 696, 891 N.Y.2d 663 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

In opposition to the plaintiffs’ prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]), the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the injured plaintiffs own actions were the sole proximate cause of the accident (see Blake v Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of N.Y. City, 1 NY3d 280, 290-291 [2003]; Rico-Castro v Do & Co N.Y. Catering, Inc., 60 AD3d 749, 750 [2009]; Santo v Scro, 43 AD3d 897, 898-899 [2007]; Pichardo v Aurora [697]*697Contrs., Inc., 29 AD3d 879, 881 [2006]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). Covello, J.P., Santucci, Chambers and Hall, JJ., concur. [Prior Case History: 20 Misc 3d 1103(A), 2008 NY Slip Op 51201(U).]

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

In opposition to the plaintiffs’ prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]), the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the injured plaintiffs own actions were the sole proximate cause of the accident (see Blake v Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of N.Y. City, 1 NY3d 280, 290-291 [2003]; Rico-Castro v Do & Co N.Y. Catering, Inc., 60 AD3d 749, 750 [2009]; Santo v Scro, 43 AD3d 897, 898-899 [2007]; Pichardo v Aurora [697]*697Contrs., Inc., 29 AD3d 879, 881 [2006]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). Covello, J.P., Santucci, Chambers and Hall, JJ., concur. [Prior Case History: 20 Misc 3d 1103(A), 2008 NY Slip Op 51201(U).]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

69 A.D.3d 696, 891 N.Y.2d 663, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nunez-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack