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

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

DecidedDecember 28, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 256 A.D.2d 566 (Saeteros v. Ferreira) 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

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D.2d 566, 682 N.Y.S.2d 885, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14032, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/saeteros-v-ferreira-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack