Rios v. 474431 Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rios v. 474431 Associates

278 A.D.2d 399, 717 N.Y.S.2d 640, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13273

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

DecidedDecember 18, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 278 A.D.2d 399 (Rios v. 474431 Associates) 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

Rios v. 474431 Associates, 278 A.D.2d 399, 717 N.Y.S.2d 640, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13273 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant 474431 Associates appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an amended judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Huttner, J.), entered October 28, 1999, as, upon a decision of the same court (G. Aronin, J.), dated January 8, 1999, determining its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and the plaintiffs cross motion for partial summary judgment on his cause of action under Labor Law § 240 (1), and upon a jury verdict on the issue of damages, is in favor of the plaintiff and against it in the principal sum of $155,000.

Ordered that the amended judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly determined that the plaintiff was entitled to partial summary judgment on the issue of liability on his cause of action under Labor Law § 240 (1). The plaintiff established, through the use of circumstantial evidence, that while he was working at ground level in the basement of the appellant’s building, a piece of a pipe fell from an elevated height, where a co-worker had been cutting pipes, and struck him in the face (see, Cosgriff v Manshul Constr. Corp., [400]*400239 AD2d 312). The appellant argues for the first time on appeal that the plaintiff could not recover under Labor Law § 240 (1) because he was on the ground. This issue is unpreserved for appellate review (see, Government Empls. Ins. Co. v Kolodny, 269 AD2d 564), and, in any event, is without merit (see, Cosgriff v Manshul Constr. Corp., supra).

The award of damages did not deviate materially from what would be reasonable compensation (see, CPLR 5501 [c]).

The parties’ remaining contentions are either without merit or academic in light of our determination. Santucci, J. P., Altman, Goldstein 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 defendant 474431 Associates appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an amended judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Huttner, J.), entered October 28, 1999, as, upon a decision of the same court (G. Aronin, J.), dated January 8, 1999, determining its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and the plaintiffs cross motion for partial summary judgment on his cause of action under Labor Law § 240 (1), and upon a jury verdict on the issue of damages, is in favor of the plaintiff and against it in the principal sum of $155,000.

Ordered that the amended judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly determined that the plaintiff was entitled to partial summary judgment on the issue of liability on his cause of action under Labor Law § 240 (1). The plaintiff established, through the use of circumstantial evidence, that while he was working at ground level in the basement of the appellant’s building, a piece of a pipe fell from an elevated height, where a co-worker had been cutting pipes, and struck him in the face (see, Cosgriff v Manshul Constr. Corp., [400]*400239 AD2d 312). The appellant argues for the first time on appeal that the plaintiff could not recover under Labor Law § 240 (1) because he was on the ground. This issue is unpreserved for appellate review (see, Government Empls. Ins. Co. v Kolodny, 269 AD2d 564), and, in any event, is without merit (see, Cosgriff v Manshul Constr. Corp., supra).

The award of damages did not deviate materially from what would be reasonable compensation (see, CPLR 5501 [c]).

The parties’ remaining contentions are either without merit or academic in light of our determination. Santucci, J. P., Altman, Goldstein and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 A.D.2d 399, 717 N.Y.S.2d 640, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13273, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rios-v-474431-associates-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack