Rios v. Gristedes Delivery Service Inc.

69 A.D.3d 499, 893 N.Y.2d 538
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 21, 2010
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 69 A.D.3d 499 (Rios v. Gristedes Delivery Service 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
Rios v. Gristedes Delivery Service Inc., 69 A.D.3d 499, 893 N.Y.2d 538 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Opinion

“Where the evidence as to the cause of the accident which injured plaintiff is undisputed, the question as to whether any act or omission of the defendant was a proximate cause thereof is one for the court and not for the jury” (Rivera v City of New [500]*500York, 11 NY2d 856, 857 [1962]; Lee v New York City Hous. Auth., 25 AD3d 214 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 708 [2006]). Here, the evidence shows that plaintiffs injury was caused by his decision to climb into a smaller dumpster that was elevated and resting on a forklift’s blades in order to grab bags of garbage and place them into a larger dumpster owned and serviced by defendant Premier Carting. That the larger dumpster had a gate that would have made the elevation unnecessary, but was rendered inaccessible by the placement of that dumpster against a storage container, did not create liability on defendant’s part, especially in light of the uncontradicted testimony of Premier Carting’s president that it did not determine the location of its dumpster, but rather that it was dictated by an employee of the property owner (see Baker v Sportservice Corp., 142 AD2d 991, 992 [1988]; see also Vazquez v Sea-Land Serv., 236 AD2d 321 [1997]). Furthermore, plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that any circumstances exist under which Premier Carting, a contractor, owed a duty of care to them (see Espinal v Melville Snow Contrs., 98 NY2d 136 [2002]; Sakai-Figurny v Irastan, LLC, 67 AD3d 985 [2009]). Concur—Gonzalez, PJ., Tom, Sweeny, Catterson and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

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

Related

Ambersley v. Athleta LLC
2019 NY Slip Op 569 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
69 A.D.3d 499, 893 N.Y.2d 538, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rios-v-gristedes-delivery-service-inc-nyappdiv-2010.