Piontek v. Huntington Public Library

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Piontek v. Huntington Public Library

306 A.D.2d 334, 760 N.Y.S.2d 661

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

DecidedJune 9, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 306 A.D.2d 334 (Piontek v. Huntington Public Library) 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

Piontek v. Huntington Public Library, 306 A.D.2d 334, 760 N.Y.S.2d 661 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Jones, J.), dated October 2, 2002, which denied his motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability on his cause of action based upon Labor Law § 240 (1).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action. [335]*335In support of the motion, the plaintiff submitted evidence that in the course of performing roof repairs, he fell from an interior pull-down stairway which had been installed to provide workers with access to the roof of the building. Contrary to the defendant’s contention, “the fact that [it] * * * was permanently installed, rather than a temporary apparatus, is irrelevant” (Ciraolo v Melville Ct. Assoc., 221 AD2d 582, 583 [1995]; see Spiteri v Chatwal Hotels, 247 AD2d 297 [1998]). However, questions of fact exist as to whether the pull-down stairway provided proper protection, and whether the plaintiff should have been provided with additional safety devices (see Olberding v Dixie Contr., 302 AD2d 574 [2003]; Tersigni v City of New York, 300 AD2d 389 [2002]). Santucci, J.P., Friedmann, Mastro and Rivera, 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 from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Jones, J.), dated October 2, 2002, which denied his motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability on his cause of action based upon Labor Law § 240 (1).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action. [335]*335In support of the motion, the plaintiff submitted evidence that in the course of performing roof repairs, he fell from an interior pull-down stairway which had been installed to provide workers with access to the roof of the building. Contrary to the defendant’s contention, “the fact that [it] * * * was permanently installed, rather than a temporary apparatus, is irrelevant” (Ciraolo v Melville Ct. Assoc., 221 AD2d 582, 583 [1995]; see Spiteri v Chatwal Hotels, 247 AD2d 297 [1998]). However, questions of fact exist as to whether the pull-down stairway provided proper protection, and whether the plaintiff should have been provided with additional safety devices (see Olberding v Dixie Contr., 302 AD2d 574 [2003]; Tersigni v City of New York, 300 AD2d 389 [2002]). Santucci, J.P., Friedmann, Mastro and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

306 A.D.2d 334, 760 N.Y.S.2d 661, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/piontek-v-huntington-public-library-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack