Rossi v. Main-South Hotel Associates

168 A.D.2d 964
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 21, 1990·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and motion denied. Memorandum: To be entitled to a judgment on liability for a violation of section 240 (1) of the Labor Law, plaintiff was required to prove, as a matter of law, not only a violation of the section, but also that the violation was a proximate cause of his injuries (see, Bland v Manocherian, 66 NY2d 452, 459; Avner v 93rd St. Assn., 147 AD2d 414, 415; Heath v Soloff Constr., 107 AD2d 507, 510; Mack v Altmans Stage Light. Co., 98 AD2d 468, 470-471). Supreme Court erred in granting plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment on liability under section 240 of the Labor Law because there is a question of fact whether the claimed violation of the statute occurring in December of 1986 was a proximate cause of his injuries. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Affronti, J.—summary judgment.) Present—Denman, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Balio and Davis, JJ.

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

Rossi v. Main-South Hotel Associates, 168 A.D.2d 964 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

168 A.D.2d 964 (Rossi v. Main-South Hotel Associates) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

SIMS, CARLETTA v. CITY OF ROCHESTER
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014
Sims v. City of Rochester
115 A.D.3d 1355 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
GOULD, NED W. v. E.E. AUSTIN & SON, INC.
114 A.D.3d 1208 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Pulsifer v. Eastman Kodak Co.
219 A.D.2d 880 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
Knight v. Conopco, Inc.
216 A.D.2d 893 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
Becker v. Royce
170 A.D.2d 974 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)