Prince v. Merit Oil of New York, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Prince v. Merit Oil of New York, Inc.

238 A.D.2d 561, 657 N.Y.S.2d 967, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4395

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

DecidedApril 28, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 238 A.D.2d 561 (Prince v. Merit Oil of New York, Inc.) 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

Prince v. Merit Oil of New York, Inc., 238 A.D.2d 561, 657 N.Y.S.2d 967, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4395 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

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, Kings County (Barasch, J.), dated March 15, 1996, as granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action predicated upon Labor Law § 241 (6).

[562]*562Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, with costs, that branch of the defendant’s motion which sought dismissal of the cause of action predicated upon Labor Law § 241 (6) is denied, and that cause of action is reinstated.

The plaintiffs citation to Industrial Code § 23-1.8 (c) (1) (12 NYCRR 23-1.8 [c] [1]) permits the cause of action predicated on Labor Law § 241 (6) to withstand the defendant’s motion for summary judgment (see, Dickson v Fantis Foods, 235 AD2d 452; Donovan v S & L Concrete Constr. Corp., 234 AD2d 336). It cannot be said as a matter of law that this regulation was inapplicable to the facts of this case. Rather, the plaintiff’s submissions raise a triable issue of fact regarding the proximate cause of the accident in question (see, Derdiarian v Felix Constr. Corp., 51 NY2d 308; McCann v City of New York, 205 AD2d 668; Capiello v Telehouse Intl. Corp., 193 AD2d 478). Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Santucci and McGinity, 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, Kings County (Barasch, J.), dated March 15, 1996, as granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action predicated upon Labor Law § 241 (6).

[562]*562Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, with costs, that branch of the defendant’s motion which sought dismissal of the cause of action predicated upon Labor Law § 241 (6) is denied, and that cause of action is reinstated.

The plaintiffs citation to Industrial Code § 23-1.8 (c) (1) (12 NYCRR 23-1.8 [c] [1]) permits the cause of action predicated on Labor Law § 241 (6) to withstand the defendant’s motion for summary judgment (see, Dickson v Fantis Foods, 235 AD2d 452; Donovan v S & L Concrete Constr. Corp., 234 AD2d 336). It cannot be said as a matter of law that this regulation was inapplicable to the facts of this case. Rather, the plaintiff’s submissions raise a triable issue of fact regarding the proximate cause of the accident in question (see, Derdiarian v Felix Constr. Corp., 51 NY2d 308; McCann v City of New York, 205 AD2d 668; Capiello v Telehouse Intl. Corp., 193 AD2d 478). Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Santucci and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

238 A.D.2d 561, 657 N.Y.S.2d 967, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4395, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/prince-v-merit-oil-of-new-york-inc-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack