Pound v. A.V.R. Realty Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pound v. A.V.R. Realty Corp.

271 A.D.2d 424, 706 N.Y.S.2d 886, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3775

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

DecidedApril 3, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 271 A.D.2d 424 (Pound v. A.V.R. Realty 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

Pound v. A.V.R. Realty Corp., 271 A.D.2d 424, 706 N.Y.S.2d 886, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3775 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Levitt, J.), dated January 18, 1999, as denied those branches of their motion which were for summary judgment dismissing those causes of action asserted in the complaint which were to recover damages for common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 240 (1).

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof denying that branch of the motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action based on violations of Labor Law § 240 (1) and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to the defendants.

The Supreme Court erred in denying that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action based on violations of Labor Law § 240 (1). Labor Law § 240 (1) does not apply to the performance of routine maintenance on an air-conditioning cooling tower (see, Raposo v WAM Great Neck Assn., 251 AD2d 392), or routine cleaning of water in a cooling tower (see, Noah v IBC Acquisition Corp., 262 AD2d 1037; Williams v Perkins Rests., 245 AD2d 1128; Bermel v Board of Educ., 231 AD2d 663).

The defendants’ remaining contentions are without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Sullivan and Smith, 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 defendants appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Levitt, J.), dated January 18, 1999, as denied those branches of their motion which were for summary judgment dismissing those causes of action asserted in the complaint which were to recover damages for common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 240 (1).

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof denying that branch of the motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action based on violations of Labor Law § 240 (1) and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to the defendants.

The Supreme Court erred in denying that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action based on violations of Labor Law § 240 (1). Labor Law § 240 (1) does not apply to the performance of routine maintenance on an air-conditioning cooling tower (see, Raposo v WAM Great Neck Assn., 251 AD2d 392), or routine cleaning of water in a cooling tower (see, Noah v IBC Acquisition Corp., 262 AD2d 1037; Williams v Perkins Rests., 245 AD2d 1128; Bermel v Board of Educ., 231 AD2d 663).

The defendants’ remaining contentions are without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Sullivan and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

271 A.D.2d 424, 706 N.Y.S.2d 886, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3775, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pound-v-avr-realty-corp-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack