Rios v. WVF-Paramount 545 Property, LLP

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rios v. WVF-Paramount 545 Property, LLP

36 A.D.3d 511, 828 N.Y.S.2d 368

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

DecidedJanuary 23, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 36 A.D.3d 511 (Rios v. WVF-Paramount 545 Property, LLP) 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. WVF-Paramount 545 Property, LLP, 36 A.D.3d 511, 828 N.Y.S.2d 368 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Debra A. James, J.), entered April 25, 2006, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted plaintiffs cross motion for summary judgment on liability on his third cause of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff building engineer was in the process of repairing and replacing electrical wiring in the ceiling of the 12th floor, in order to restore lighting to the entire floor, at the time the ladder he was standing on collapsed. The work he was engaged in was more than simply changing a lightbulb, and constituted “repair[s]” within the meaning of Labor Law § 240 (1) (Piccione v 1165 Park Ave., 258 AD2d 357 [1999], lv dismissed 93 NY2d 957 [1999]). Concur — Tom, J.E, Saxe, Sullivan, Buckley and McGuire, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Debra A. James, J.), entered April 25, 2006, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted plaintiffs cross motion for summary judgment on liability on his third cause of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff building engineer was in the process of repairing and replacing electrical wiring in the ceiling of the 12th floor, in order to restore lighting to the entire floor, at the time the ladder he was standing on collapsed. The work he was engaged in was more than simply changing a lightbulb, and constituted “repair[s]” within the meaning of Labor Law § 240 (1) (Piccione v 1165 Park Ave., 258 AD2d 357 [1999], lv dismissed 93 NY2d 957 [1999]). Concur — Tom, J.E, Saxe, Sullivan, Buckley and McGuire, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

36 A.D.3d 511, 828 N.Y.S.2d 368, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rios-v-wvf-paramount-545-property-llp-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack