Padula v. Lilarn Properties Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Padula v. Lilarn Properties Corp.

198 A.D.2d 916, 604 N.Y.S.2d 464, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11626

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

DecidedNovember 19, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 198 A.D.2d 916 (Padula v. Lilarn Properties Corp.) 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

Padula v. Lilarn Properties Corp., 198 A.D.2d 916, 604 N.Y.S.2d 464, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11626 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Plaintiff brought this action seeking to recover damages for injuries sustained when he fell from a scaffold while performing work on a construction project in Massachusetts.

Supreme Court properly granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s causes of action alleging violations of sections 200, 240 (1) and 241 (6) of the New York State Labor Law and various rules and regulations thereunder. "The New York Legislature is without authority to impose standards of conduct on contractors, owners and agents relating to a worksite located in a foreign jurisdiction” (Brewster v Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co., 167 AD2d 908; see also, Bardin v Tuozzolo, 190 AD2d 1090, lv dismissed 82 NY2d 705). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Shaheen, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Pine, Lawton, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Plaintiff brought this action seeking to recover damages for injuries sustained when he fell from a scaffold while performing work on a construction project in Massachusetts.

Supreme Court properly granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s causes of action alleging violations of sections 200, 240 (1) and 241 (6) of the New York State Labor Law and various rules and regulations thereunder. "The New York Legislature is without authority to impose standards of conduct on contractors, owners and agents relating to a worksite located in a foreign jurisdiction” (Brewster v Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co., 167 AD2d 908; see also, Bardin v Tuozzolo, 190 AD2d 1090, lv dismissed 82 NY2d 705). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Shaheen, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Pine, Lawton, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

198 A.D.2d 916, 604 N.Y.S.2d 464, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11626, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/padula-v-lilarn-properties-corp-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack