Schron v. New York University

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schron v. New York University

14 A.D.3d 468, 788 N.Y.S.2d 386, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 577

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

DecidedJanuary 27, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 14 A.D.3d 468 (Schron v. New York University) 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

Schron v. New York University, 14 A.D.3d 468, 788 N.Y.S.2d 386, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 577 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan A. Madden, J.), entered January 8, 2004, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on their Labor Law § 240 claim and denied defendants’ cross motion for partial summary judgment dismissing said claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The plaintiff construction worker’s deposition testimony that he was injured at the work site when a wooden scaffolding plank struck him on the head was prima facie evidence of a violation of section 240 (1), shifting the burden to the owner/manager defendants to raise a factual issue on liability (see Aragon v 233 W. 21st St., 201 AD2d 353, 354 [1994]). Defendants failed to rebut adequately plaintiffs’ showing. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan A. Madden, J.), entered January 8, 2004, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on their Labor Law § 240 claim and denied defendants’ cross motion for partial summary judgment dismissing said claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The plaintiff construction worker’s deposition testimony that he was injured at the work site when a wooden scaffolding plank struck him on the head was prima facie evidence of a violation of section 240 (1), shifting the burden to the owner/manager defendants to raise a factual issue on liability (see Aragon v 233 W. 21st St., 201 AD2d 353, 354 [1994]). Defendants failed to rebut adequately plaintiffs’ showing. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 A.D.3d 468, 788 N.Y.S.2d 386, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 577, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schron-v-new-york-university-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack