Sciangula v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sciangula v. City of New York

250 A.D.2d 833, 673 N.Y.S.2d 454, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6000

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

DecidedMay 26, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 250 A.D.2d 833 (Sciangula v. City of New York) 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

Sciangula v. City of New York, 250 A.D.2d 833, 673 N.Y.S.2d 454, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6000 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Cusick, J.), dated May 7, 1997, as granted that branch of the defendant’s cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

As the defendant correctly contends, assuming arguendo that a violation of Labor Law § 27-a (3) could constitute a valid predicate for a claim pursuant to General Municipal Law § 205-e, the plaintiff has failed as a matter of law to set forth sufficient factual allegations to make out such a violation (see generally, Hartnett v New York City Tr. Auth., 86 NY2d 438), or to establish the requisite connection between his injury and any such purported violation of the statute (see generally, Zanghi v Niagara Frontier Transp. Commn., 85 NY2d 423; Dillon v City of New York, 238 AD2d 302; Jantzen v Edelman of N. Y., 221 AD2d 594). Rather, it is clear that the plaintiffs sole remaining theory of recovery, i.e., that following his recuperation from an injury he was returned to duty in an inappropriate work assignment where he was attacked by a prisoner and injured, does not fall within the ambit of Labor Law § 27-a (3). Accordingly, the defendant was entitled to summary judgment. O’Brien, J. P., Sullivan, Pizzuto and Krausman, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Cusick, J.), dated May 7, 1997, as granted that branch of the defendant’s cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

As the defendant correctly contends, assuming arguendo that a violation of Labor Law § 27-a (3) could constitute a valid predicate for a claim pursuant to General Municipal Law § 205-e, the plaintiff has failed as a matter of law to set forth sufficient factual allegations to make out such a violation (see generally, Hartnett v New York City Tr. Auth., 86 NY2d 438), or to establish the requisite connection between his injury and any such purported violation of the statute (see generally, Zanghi v Niagara Frontier Transp. Commn., 85 NY2d 423; Dillon v City of New York, 238 AD2d 302; Jantzen v Edelman of N. Y., 221 AD2d 594). Rather, it is clear that the plaintiffs sole remaining theory of recovery, i.e., that following his recuperation from an injury he was returned to duty in an inappropriate work assignment where he was attacked by a prisoner and injured, does not fall within the ambit of Labor Law § 27-a (3). Accordingly, the defendant was entitled to summary judgment. O’Brien, J. P., Sullivan, Pizzuto and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

250 A.D.2d 833, 673 N.Y.S.2d 454, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6000, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sciangula-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack