Patterson v. Kummar Development Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Patterson v. Kummar Development Corp.

278 A.D.2d 855, 721 N.Y.S.2d 433, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13736

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

DecidedDecember 27, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 278 A.D.2d 855 (Patterson v. Kummar Development 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

Patterson v. Kummar Development Corp., 278 A.D.2d 855, 721 N.Y.S.2d 433, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13736 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied defendants’ cross motion for partial summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim but erred in denying plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on that claim. Plaintiffs established that James Patterson (plaintiff) fell from an elevated surface due to the absence of any safety devices (see generally, Rocovich v Consolidated Edison Co., 78 NY2d 509, 513), and defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Defendants submitted no evidence to support their contention that the actions of plaintiff were “the sole proximate cause of his injuries” (Weininger v Hagedorn & Co., 91 NY2d 958, 960, rearg denied 92 NY2d 875). We thus modify the order by granting plaintiffs’ motion. (Appeals from Order of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Koshian, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present— Hayes, J. P., Hurlbutt, Scudder, Kehoe and Lawton, JJ.

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

Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied defendants’ cross motion for partial summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim but erred in denying plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on that claim. Plaintiffs established that James Patterson (plaintiff) fell from an elevated surface due to the absence of any safety devices (see generally, Rocovich v Consolidated Edison Co., 78 NY2d 509, 513), and defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Defendants submitted no evidence to support their contention that the actions of plaintiff were “the sole proximate cause of his injuries” (Weininger v Hagedorn & Co., 91 NY2d 958, 960, rearg denied 92 NY2d 875). We thus modify the order by granting plaintiffs’ motion. (Appeals from Order of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Koshian, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present— Hayes, J. P., Hurlbutt, Scudder, Kehoe and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 A.D.2d 855, 721 N.Y.S.2d 433, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13736, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/patterson-v-kummar-development-corp-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack