Sapkaroski v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sapkaroski v. State

149 A.D.2d 966, 543 N.Y.S.2d 345, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6000

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

DecidedApril 14, 1989

DocketClaim No. 70248

StatusPublished

This text of 149 A.D.2d 966 (Sapkaroski v. State) 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

Sapkaroski v. State, 149 A.D.2d 966, 543 N.Y.S.2d 345, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6000 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: The court’s findings that claimant’s injuries were caused by a fall from a bridge and by defendant’s failure to provide claimant with any safety devices are amply supported by the evidence and should be affirmed. Thus, claimant established defendant’s absolute liability under section 240 (1) of the Labor Law (see, Zimmer v Chemung County Performing Arts, 65 NY2d 513, rearg denied 65 NY2d 1054). We also find that the court’s evidentiary rulings were proper and that the verdict was not excessive considering the nature and extent of claimant’s injuries (see, James v Shanley, 73 AD2d 752). (Appeal from order of Court of Claims, NeMoyer, J. — negligence.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Denman, Green, Pine and Lawton, JJ.

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

— Judgment unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: The court’s findings that claimant’s injuries were caused by a fall from a bridge and by defendant’s failure to provide claimant with any safety devices are amply supported by the evidence and should be affirmed. Thus, claimant established defendant’s absolute liability under section 240 (1) of the Labor Law (see, Zimmer v Chemung County Performing Arts, 65 NY2d 513, rearg denied 65 NY2d 1054). We also find that the court’s evidentiary rulings were proper and that the verdict was not excessive considering the nature and extent of claimant’s injuries (see, James v Shanley, 73 AD2d 752). (Appeal from order of Court of Claims, NeMoyer, J. — negligence.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Denman, Green, Pine and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

149 A.D.2d 966, 543 N.Y.S.2d 345, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6000, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sapkaroski-v-state-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack