Olshewitz v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Olshewitz v. City of New York

59 A.D.3d 309, 872 N.Y.S.2d 917

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

DecidedFebruary 24, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 59 A.D.3d 309 (Olshewitz 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

Olshewitz v. City of New York, 59 A.D.3d 309, 872 N.Y.S.2d 917 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis B. York, J.), entered March 26, 2008, which, to the extent appealed from, granted plaintiff partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs Labor Law § 241 (6) claim is predicated on a violation of Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-1.7 (b) (1), which regulates the safeguarding of hazardous openings. Defendant-appellant argues that the court erred in granting partial summary judgment as to liability on plaintiffs section 241 (6) claim because there are triable issues of fact concerning proximate cause and comparative negligence. Plaintiff having demonstrated his entitlement to summary judgment, appellant failed to satisfy its burden to present evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to any of its alleged defenses (see Catarino v State of New York, 55 AD3d 467 [2008]). Concur—Gonzalez, J.P., Sweeny, Renwick and Freedman, JJ. [See 2008 NY Slip Op 30853(U).]

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis B. York, J.), entered March 26, 2008, which, to the extent appealed from, granted plaintiff partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs Labor Law § 241 (6) claim is predicated on a violation of Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-1.7 (b) (1), which regulates the safeguarding of hazardous openings. Defendant-appellant argues that the court erred in granting partial summary judgment as to liability on plaintiffs section 241 (6) claim because there are triable issues of fact concerning proximate cause and comparative negligence. Plaintiff having demonstrated his entitlement to summary judgment, appellant failed to satisfy its burden to present evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to any of its alleged defenses (see Catarino v State of New York, 55 AD3d 467 [2008]). Concur—Gonzalez, J.P., Sweeny, Renwick and Freedman, JJ. [See 2008 NY Slip Op 30853(U).]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 A.D.3d 309, 872 N.Y.S.2d 917, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/olshewitz-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack