Sinch v. Aloia

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sinch v. Aloia

48 A.D.3d 373, 853 N.Y.S.2d 40

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

DecidedFebruary 28, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 48 A.D.3d 373 (Sinch v. Aloia) 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

Sinch v. Aloia, 48 A.D.3d 373, 853 N.Y.S.2d 40 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lucy Billings, J.), entered on or about October 31, 2006, which, to the extent appealed from, granted the cross motion of defendant Jorge Pereira Construction, Inc. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff sustained injury while working on the second story of a house being built for the Aloias. He fell into the basement through three-by-six-foot openings cut into the first and second floors to accommodate a chimney to be constructed by Pereira. Plaintiffs intimation that the protective planking that had covered the openings in the first and second floors might have been removed by one of Pereira’s employees is unsupported by admissible evidence, and the complaint was properly dismissed as against said defendant (Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). Concur&emdash;Tom, J.P., Nardelli, Williams and McGuire, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lucy Billings, J.), entered on or about October 31, 2006, which, to the extent appealed from, granted the cross motion of defendant Jorge Pereira Construction, Inc. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff sustained injury while working on the second story of a house being built for the Aloias. He fell into the basement through three-by-six-foot openings cut into the first and second floors to accommodate a chimney to be constructed by Pereira. Plaintiffs intimation that the protective planking that had covered the openings in the first and second floors might have been removed by one of Pereira’s employees is unsupported by admissible evidence, and the complaint was properly dismissed as against said defendant (Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). Concur&emdash;Tom, J.P., Nardelli, Williams and McGuire, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

48 A.D.3d 373, 853 N.Y.S.2d 40, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sinch-v-aloia-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack