Park v. Ferragamo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Park v. Ferragamo

282 A.D.2d 588, 723 N.Y.S.2d 378, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3836

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

DecidedApril 16, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 282 A.D.2d 588 (Park v. Ferragamo) 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

Park v. Ferragamo, 282 A.D.2d 588, 723 N.Y.S.2d 378, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3836 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Pagones, J.), dated May 1, 2000, as denied that branch of his cross motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1).

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the plaintiffs cross motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1) because there are questions of fact as to how the accident occurred (see, Castronovo v Doe, 274 AD2d 442; Avendano v Sazerac, Inc., 248 AD2d 340). Santucci, J. P., Altman, Luciano and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Pagones, J.), dated May 1, 2000, as denied that branch of his cross motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1).

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the plaintiffs cross motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1) because there are questions of fact as to how the accident occurred (see, Castronovo v Doe, 274 AD2d 442; Avendano v Sazerac, Inc., 248 AD2d 340). Santucci, J. P., Altman, Luciano and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D.2d 588, 723 N.Y.S.2d 378, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3836, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/park-v-ferragamo-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack