Santos v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of United States

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Santos v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of United States

220 A.D.2d 274, 632 N.Y.S.2d 110, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10086

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

DecidedOctober 12, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 220 A.D.2d 274 (Santos v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of United States) 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

Santos v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of United States, 220 A.D.2d 274, 632 N.Y.S.2d 110, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10086 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Arber, J.), entered February 21, 1995, which, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant-appellant’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In an action for personal injuries allegedly sustained when plaintiff fell while cleaning a moving escalator in the course of his employment, triable issues of fact preclude summary judgment, including whether appellant security guard service was responsible for and had control over starting and stopping the escalator at the time of the accident. If so, an issue of fact exists as to whether it owed a duty to plaintiff to promptly turn off the escalator when he asked its employee to do so. Also present is a question of to what extent, if any, plaintiff’s own culpable conduct, in attempting to clean a moving escalator (see, Ugarriza v Schmieder, 46 NY2d 471, 475-476), caused his injury (see, Arbegast v Board of Educ., 65 NY2d 161, 168, 171). We note that it will be plaintiff’s burden at trial to establish the existence of such duties but on this motion for summary judgment, the burden was on movant-appellant to demonstrate they did not exist (see, Colt v Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 209 AD2d 294). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach and Tom, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Arber, J.), entered February 21, 1995, which, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant-appellant’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In an action for personal injuries allegedly sustained when plaintiff fell while cleaning a moving escalator in the course of his employment, triable issues of fact preclude summary judgment, including whether appellant security guard service was responsible for and had control over starting and stopping the escalator at the time of the accident. If so, an issue of fact exists as to whether it owed a duty to plaintiff to promptly turn off the escalator when he asked its employee to do so. Also present is a question of to what extent, if any, plaintiff’s own culpable conduct, in attempting to clean a moving escalator (see, Ugarriza v Schmieder, 46 NY2d 471, 475-476), caused his injury (see, Arbegast v Board of Educ., 65 NY2d 161, 168, 171). We note that it will be plaintiff’s burden at trial to establish the existence of such duties but on this motion for summary judgment, the burden was on movant-appellant to demonstrate they did not exist (see, Colt v Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 209 AD2d 294). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

220 A.D.2d 274, 632 N.Y.S.2d 110, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10086, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/santos-v-equitable-life-assurance-society-of-united-states-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack