Smith v. Shell Oil Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Smith v. Shell Oil Co.

205 A.D.2d 681, 613 N.Y.S.2d 642, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6471

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

DecidedJune 20, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 205 A.D.2d 681 (Smith v. Shell Oil Co.) 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

Smith v. Shell Oil Co., 205 A.D.2d 681, 613 N.Y.S.2d 642, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6471 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries under Labor Law § 240 (1), the plaintiff appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cohalan, J.), entered December 4, 1992, which, inter alia, granted the motions of the defendants and third-party defendant for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

Since the changing of lightbulbs, by itself, is not "repairing”, as that term is used in Labor Law § 240 (1) (see, Manente v Ropost, Inc., 136 AD2d 681; cf., Izrailev v Ficarra Furniture, 70 NY2d 813), the Supreme Court properly granted the motions of the defendants and the third-party defendant for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

In light of the foregoing determination, we need not reach the parties’ remaining contentions. O’Brien, J. P., Pizzuto, Joy 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 under Labor Law § 240 (1), the plaintiff appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cohalan, J.), entered December 4, 1992, which, inter alia, granted the motions of the defendants and third-party defendant for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

Since the changing of lightbulbs, by itself, is not "repairing”, as that term is used in Labor Law § 240 (1) (see, Manente v Ropost, Inc., 136 AD2d 681; cf., Izrailev v Ficarra Furniture, 70 NY2d 813), the Supreme Court properly granted the motions of the defendants and the third-party defendant for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

In light of the foregoing determination, we need not reach the parties’ remaining contentions. O’Brien, J. P., Pizzuto, Joy and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

205 A.D.2d 681, 613 N.Y.S.2d 642, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6471, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-shell-oil-co-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack