Scaglione v. Riverbay Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Scaglione v. Riverbay Corp.

279 A.D.2d 254, 719 N.Y.S.2d 37, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 38

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

DecidedJanuary 4, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 279 A.D.2d 254 (Scaglione v. Riverbay Corp.) 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

Scaglione v. Riverbay Corp., 279 A.D.2d 254, 719 N.Y.S.2d 37, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 38 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Yvonne Gonzalez, J.), entered on or about November 1, 1999, insofar as it denied defendant Riverbay Corporation’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6) claims, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted.

Defendant established its entitlement to summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs Labor Law claims. As we have previously held, the changing of an elevator cable, in the absence of any proof that the elevator was inoperable, does not constitute a repair within the contemplation of Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6) (Molloy v 750 7th Ave. Assocs., 256 AD2d 61; see also, Papapietro v Rock-Time, 265 AD2d 174; Carr v Jacob Perl Assocs., 201 AD2d 296; Wilson v City of New York, 903 F Supp 553, affd 89 F3d 32). The fact that maintenance on the cable may have been warranted because it showed signs of wear [255]*255does not alter this conclusion (id.). Concur — Mazzarelli, J. P., Lerner, Buckley, Friedman, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Yvonne Gonzalez, J.), entered on or about November 1, 1999, insofar as it denied defendant Riverbay Corporation’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6) claims, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted.

Defendant established its entitlement to summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs Labor Law claims. As we have previously held, the changing of an elevator cable, in the absence of any proof that the elevator was inoperable, does not constitute a repair within the contemplation of Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6) (Molloy v 750 7th Ave. Assocs., 256 AD2d 61; see also, Papapietro v Rock-Time, 265 AD2d 174; Carr v Jacob Perl Assocs., 201 AD2d 296; Wilson v City of New York, 903 F Supp 553, affd 89 F3d 32). The fact that maintenance on the cable may have been warranted because it showed signs of wear [255]*255does not alter this conclusion (id.). Concur — Mazzarelli, J. P., Lerner, Buckley, Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

279 A.D.2d 254, 719 N.Y.S.2d 37, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 38, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scaglione-v-riverbay-corp-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack