Quinn v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Quinn v. City of New York

198 A.D.2d 173, 604 N.Y.S.2d 69

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

DecidedNovember 23, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 198 A.D.2d 173 (Quinn v. City of New York) 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

Quinn v. City of New York, 198 A.D.2d 173, 604 N.Y.S.2d 69 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (William Davis, J.), entered August 6, 1992, after a jury verdict rendered in favor of defendant and against plaintiff, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Since plaintiff failed to meet his burden of proving that "a violation of a safety regulation promulgated pursuant to Labor Law § 241 (6) was the proximate cause of the accident” (Ares v State of New York, 80 NY2d 959, 960), he was not entitled to a directed verdict. Further, as the jury could have reached its decision by a fair interpretation of the evidence, the court properly refused to set it aside (see, Pettersen v Curreri, 99 AD2d 774). Finally, the court’s charge, which included elements of common-law negligence as to the contractor, was proper, as "Labor Law § 241 (6) is, in a sense, a hybrid, sincfe it reiterates the general common-law standard of care and then contemplates the establishment of specific detailed rules through the Labor Commissioner’s rule-making authority” (Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 NY2d 494, 503). Concur — Carro, J. P., Kupferman, Asch, Rubin and Nardelli, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (William Davis, J.), entered August 6, 1992, after a jury verdict rendered in favor of defendant and against plaintiff, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Since plaintiff failed to meet his burden of proving that "a violation of a safety regulation promulgated pursuant to Labor Law § 241 (6) was the proximate cause of the accident” (Ares v State of New York, 80 NY2d 959, 960), he was not entitled to a directed verdict. Further, as the jury could have reached its decision by a fair interpretation of the evidence, the court properly refused to set it aside (see, Pettersen v Curreri, 99 AD2d 774). Finally, the court’s charge, which included elements of common-law negligence as to the contractor, was proper, as "Labor Law § 241 (6) is, in a sense, a hybrid, sincfe it reiterates the general common-law standard of care and then contemplates the establishment of specific detailed rules through the Labor Commissioner’s rule-making authority” (Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 NY2d 494, 503). Concur — Carro, J. P., Kupferman, Asch, Rubin and Nardelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

198 A.D.2d 173, 604 N.Y.S.2d 69, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/quinn-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack