Sanacore v. Solla

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sanacore v. Solla

284 A.D.2d 321, 725 N.Y.S.2d 383, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5639

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

DecidedJune 4, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 284 A.D.2d 321 (Sanacore v. Solla) 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

Sanacore v. Solla, 284 A.D.2d 321, 725 N.Y.S.2d 383, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5639 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, that branch of the motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action based on Labor Law § 240 (1) is granted, and that cause of action is dismissed.

The plaintiff William Sanacore was replacing a broken fluorescent light ballast when he was hit on the head by a falling object and fell from a ladder. Contrary to the conclusion of the Supreme Court, the activity in which Sanacore was engaged when he fell constituted mere routine maintenance. Therefore, that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action based on Labor Law § 240 (1) should have been granted (see, Bermel v Board of Educ., 231 AD2d 663).

In light of our determination, the defendants’ remaining contention is academic and, in any event, without merit (see, Thompson v Marotta, 256 AD2d 1124). O’Brien, J. P., Altman, Luciano and Adams, JJ., concur.

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

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, that branch of the motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action based on Labor Law § 240 (1) is granted, and that cause of action is dismissed.

The plaintiff William Sanacore was replacing a broken fluorescent light ballast when he was hit on the head by a falling object and fell from a ladder. Contrary to the conclusion of the Supreme Court, the activity in which Sanacore was engaged when he fell constituted mere routine maintenance. Therefore, that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action based on Labor Law § 240 (1) should have been granted (see, Bermel v Board of Educ., 231 AD2d 663).

In light of our determination, the defendants’ remaining contention is academic and, in any event, without merit (see, Thompson v Marotta, 256 AD2d 1124). O’Brien, J. P., Altman, Luciano and Adams, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

284 A.D.2d 321, 725 N.Y.S.2d 383, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5639, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sanacore-v-solla-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack