Rittwager v. Lawrence

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rittwager v. Lawrence

169 A.D.2d 685, 565 N.Y.S.2d 66, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 800

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

DecidedJanuary 31, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 169 A.D.2d 685 (Rittwager v. Lawrence) 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

Rittwager v. Lawrence, 169 A.D.2d 685, 565 N.Y.S.2d 66, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 800 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered June 18, 1990, which denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

[686]*686Plaintiff was allegedly injured when he fell backwards off a loading dock, while carrying a heavy, cumbersome object. The defendants are the owners of the premises. Defendants contend that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law, as plaintiff’s fall was proximately caused not by any defect or failure to warn, but instead, as plaintiff himself stated, by a "push” from the object he was carrying, which propelled plaintiff off the loading dock. To the contrary, we find that the affidavit of plaintiff’s expert raises questions of fact as to whether a defect in the premises caused or contributed to plaintiffs injuries. Concur—Milonas, J. P., Wallach, Asch, Kassal and Smith, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered June 18, 1990, which denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

[686]*686Plaintiff was allegedly injured when he fell backwards off a loading dock, while carrying a heavy, cumbersome object. The defendants are the owners of the premises. Defendants contend that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law, as plaintiff’s fall was proximately caused not by any defect or failure to warn, but instead, as plaintiff himself stated, by a "push” from the object he was carrying, which propelled plaintiff off the loading dock. To the contrary, we find that the affidavit of plaintiff’s expert raises questions of fact as to whether a defect in the premises caused or contributed to plaintiffs injuries. Concur—Milonas, J. P., Wallach, Asch, Kassal and Smith, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

169 A.D.2d 685, 565 N.Y.S.2d 66, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 800, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rittwager-v-lawrence-nyappdiv-1991.