Pena v. Seacrest Construction Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pena v. Seacrest Construction Corp.

275 A.D.2d 737, 713 N.Y.S.2d 494, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9272

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

DecidedSeptember 18, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 275 A.D.2d 737 (Pena v. Seacrest Construction 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

Pena v. Seacrest Construction Corp., 275 A.D.2d 737, 713 N.Y.S.2d 494, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9272 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Taylor, J.), dated August 4, 1999, which, upon granting the motion of the defendant LIPCO Electrical Corp. pursuant to CPLR 4401 at the close of the plaintiffs’ case to dismiss the complaint, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The trial court properly refused to submit this case to the jury based upon the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. The plaintiffs failed to establish that the event was of a kind that ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someone’s negligence and that it was not caused by any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the injured plaintiff (see, Ebanks v New York City Tr. Auth., 70 NY2d 621; Braithwaite v Equitable Life Assur. Socy., 232 AD2d 352; Murphy v Waldbaum, Inc., 228 AD2d 156; Cacciolo v Port Auth., 186 AD2d 528). Bracken, J. P., Santucci, McGinity and Feuerstein, 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, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Taylor, J.), dated August 4, 1999, which, upon granting the motion of the defendant LIPCO Electrical Corp. pursuant to CPLR 4401 at the close of the plaintiffs’ case to dismiss the complaint, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The trial court properly refused to submit this case to the jury based upon the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. The plaintiffs failed to establish that the event was of a kind that ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someone’s negligence and that it was not caused by any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the injured plaintiff (see, Ebanks v New York City Tr. Auth., 70 NY2d 621; Braithwaite v Equitable Life Assur. Socy., 232 AD2d 352; Murphy v Waldbaum, Inc., 228 AD2d 156; Cacciolo v Port Auth., 186 AD2d 528). Bracken, J. P., Santucci, McGinity and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

275 A.D.2d 737, 713 N.Y.S.2d 494, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9272, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pena-v-seacrest-construction-corp-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack