Pulsifer v. Eastman Kodak Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pulsifer v. Eastman Kodak Co.

219 A.D.2d 880, 631 N.Y.S.2d 948, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11075

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

DecidedSeptember 29, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 219 A.D.2d 880 (Pulsifer v. Eastman Kodak Co.) 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

Pulsifer v. Eastman Kodak Co., 219 A.D.2d 880, 631 N.Y.S.2d 948, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11075 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed with costs to plaintiffs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment under Labor Law § 240 (1). Plaintiff Jerry Pulsifer was injured as he descended a ladder from one level of scaffolding to another, an activity covered by the statute (see, Brown v Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 188 AD2d 1014). Unlike the plaintiff in Bonaparte v Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. (188 AD2d 853), Pulsifer did not fall at the same level at which he had been working.

The court erred, however, in granting plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (2). Although it is uncontroverted that the scaffolding lacked guardrails in contravention of the statute, plaintiffs did not show that the violation of the statute was a proximate cause of Pulsifer’s injuries, inasmuch as Pulsifer was descending a ladder when he fell (see, Duda v Rouse Constr. Corp., 32 NY2d 405, 410; Knight v Conopco, 216 AD2d 893; Rossi v Main-South Hotel Assocs., 168 AD2d 964). We modify the order on appeal by denying plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (2). (Appeal from Order of [881]*881Supreme Court, Monroe County, Frazee, J. — Labor Law.) Present — Pine, J. P., Lawton, Wesley, Davis and Boehm, 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 with costs to plaintiffs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment under Labor Law § 240 (1). Plaintiff Jerry Pulsifer was injured as he descended a ladder from one level of scaffolding to another, an activity covered by the statute (see, Brown v Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 188 AD2d 1014). Unlike the plaintiff in Bonaparte v Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. (188 AD2d 853), Pulsifer did not fall at the same level at which he had been working.

The court erred, however, in granting plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (2). Although it is uncontroverted that the scaffolding lacked guardrails in contravention of the statute, plaintiffs did not show that the violation of the statute was a proximate cause of Pulsifer’s injuries, inasmuch as Pulsifer was descending a ladder when he fell (see, Duda v Rouse Constr. Corp., 32 NY2d 405, 410; Knight v Conopco, 216 AD2d 893; Rossi v Main-South Hotel Assocs., 168 AD2d 964). We modify the order on appeal by denying plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (2). (Appeal from Order of [881]*881Supreme Court, Monroe County, Frazee, J. — Labor Law.) Present — Pine, J. P., Lawton, Wesley, Davis and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

219 A.D.2d 880, 631 N.Y.S.2d 948, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11075, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pulsifer-v-eastman-kodak-co-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack