Rzymski v. Metropolitan Tower Life Insurance

94 A.D.3d 629, 942 N.Y.S.2d 530
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 24, 2012
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 94 A.D.3d 629 (Rzymski v. Metropolitan Tower Life Insurance) 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
Rzymski v. Metropolitan Tower Life Insurance, 94 A.D.3d 629, 942 N.Y.S.2d 530 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jeffrey K. Oing, J.), entered August 29, 2011, which granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as to liability on his cause of action pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1) and denied defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff, a steam fitter, was installing one end of a steel pipe that weighed approximately 250 pounds, and was'20 feet long and four inches wide, into a clevis hanger when the other side of the pipe that had previously been installed, came loose, causing the pipe to strike him in the head and knock him off the ladder on which he was standing. Under these circumstances, the motion court correctly granted plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment on his cause of action pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1). Plaintiff established his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that his claims encompass both a falling object and a fall from an elevation due to inadequate safety devices (see e.g. Kosavick v Tishman Constr. Corp. of N.Y., 50 AD3d 287, 288 [2008]). Defendants failed to raise an issue of fact in opposition to the motion.

[630]*630The motion court also correctly denied defendants’ cross motion to dismiss the cause of action pursuant to Labor Law § 241 (6), which is predicated on a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.8 (c). The record reflects an issue of fact concerning whether safety hats, i.e., hard hats, were available on site.

We have considered defendants’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Moskowitz, Abdus-Salaam and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

Related

Riera v. New York City Hous. Auth.
2024 NY Slip Op 34664(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2025)
Rivera v. 454 W. 57th St. Holding LLC
2025 NY Slip Op 01328 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
Molina v. 114 Fifth Ave. Assoc., LLC
2024 NY Slip Op 05058 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2024)
Rivera v. 712 Fifth Ave. Owner LP
2024 NY Slip Op 03562 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2024)
Siguencia v. City of New York
2024 NY Slip Op 32190(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2024)
Gericitano v. Brookfield Props. OLP Co. LLC
2018 NY Slip Op 480 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
94 A.D.3d 629, 942 N.Y.S.2d 530, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rzymski-v-metropolitan-tower-life-insurance-nyappdiv-2012.