Saeteros v. Ferreira

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Saeteros v. Ferreira

256 A.D.2d 566, 682 N.Y.S.2d 885, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14032

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 28, 1998·Published

Opinion

—In an action to recover dam[567]*567ages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Price, J.), entered February 24, 1998, which, upon granting the defendants’ motion for judgment as a matter of law after the close of evidence, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contentions, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion for judgment as a matter of law (see, CPLR 4401; Szczerbiak v Pilat, 90 NY2d 553, 556). Based on the evidence presented at the trial, no rational trier of fact could determine that the house in question was not a one-family or two-family dwelling. Therefore, the defendants were exempt from liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (see, Khela v Neiger, 85 NY2d 333; Ortiz v Pena, 227 AD2d 297). Bracken, J. P., Ritter, Copertino and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover dam[567]*567ages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Price, J.), entered February 24, 1998, which, upon granting the defendants’ motion for judgment as a matter of law after the close of evidence, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contentions, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion for judgment as a matter of law (see, CPLR 4401; Szczerbiak v Pilat, 90 NY2d 553, 556). Based on the evidence presented at the trial, no rational trier of fact could determine that the house in question was not a one-family or two-family dwelling. Therefore, the defendants were exempt from liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (see, Khela v Neiger, 85 NY2d 333; Ortiz v Pena, 227 AD2d 297). Bracken, J. P., Ritter, Copertino and Florio, JJ., concur.

Saeteros v. Ferreira, 256 A.D.2d 566, 682 N.Y.S.2d 885, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14032 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

256 A.D.2d 566 (Saeteros v. Ferreira) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related