Smith v. Taylor

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Smith v. Taylor

279 A.D.2d 566, 719 N.Y.S.2d 686, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 600

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

DecidedJanuary 22, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 279 A.D.2d 566 (Smith v. Taylor) 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. Taylor, 279 A.D.2d 566, 719 N.Y.S.2d 686, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 600 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Slobod, J.), dated June 19, 2000, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The injured plaintiff, Kenneth Smith (hereinafter the plaintiff), voluntarily agreed to help the defendant’s son remove a tree from the defendant’s property. The plaintiff brought his [567]*567own ladder and chainsaw to the defendant’s property. The plaintiff climbed his ladder and proceeded to cut a branch that he determined should be removed to provide space for him. The branch fell to the ground, hit the base of the ladder, and the plaintiff fell off the ladder.

A landowner owes a duty to another on his land to keep it in a reasonably safe condition (see, Basso v Miller, 40 NY2d 233, 241). However, where, as here, the injury resulted not from any unsafe condition of the defendant’s land but as a direct result of the plaintiff’s use of his own equipment while engaged in an activity he volunteered to undertake, the landowner is not liable (see, Macey v Truman, 70 NY2d 918, 919; Collins v Petroski, 155 AD2d 799). Under these circumstances, “the law imposed no duty on defendant as landowner to protect plaintiff from the unfortunate consequences of his own actions” (Macey v Truman, supra, at 919).

The plaintiffs affidavit submitted in opposition to the motion stated that the defendant told him which branches to cut. However, this was designed to avoid the consequences of his earlier deposition testimony where he stated that he determined to cut the branch that caused the accident. Therefore, the affidavit was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to the defendant’s negligence (see, Bloom v La Femme Fatale, 273 AD2d 187). Bracken, Acting P. J., Santucci, Altman and Florio, 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, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Slobod, J.), dated June 19, 2000, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The injured plaintiff, Kenneth Smith (hereinafter the plaintiff), voluntarily agreed to help the defendant’s son remove a tree from the defendant’s property. The plaintiff brought his [567]*567own ladder and chainsaw to the defendant’s property. The plaintiff climbed his ladder and proceeded to cut a branch that he determined should be removed to provide space for him. The branch fell to the ground, hit the base of the ladder, and the plaintiff fell off the ladder.

A landowner owes a duty to another on his land to keep it in a reasonably safe condition (see, Basso v Miller, 40 NY2d 233, 241). However, where, as here, the injury resulted not from any unsafe condition of the defendant’s land but as a direct result of the plaintiff’s use of his own equipment while engaged in an activity he volunteered to undertake, the landowner is not liable (see, Macey v Truman, 70 NY2d 918, 919; Collins v Petroski, 155 AD2d 799). Under these circumstances, “the law imposed no duty on defendant as landowner to protect plaintiff from the unfortunate consequences of his own actions” (Macey v Truman, supra, at 919).

The plaintiffs affidavit submitted in opposition to the motion stated that the defendant told him which branches to cut. However, this was designed to avoid the consequences of his earlier deposition testimony where he stated that he determined to cut the branch that caused the accident. Therefore, the affidavit was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to the defendant’s negligence (see, Bloom v La Femme Fatale, 273 AD2d 187). Bracken, Acting P. J., Santucci, Altman and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

279 A.D.2d 566, 719 N.Y.S.2d 686, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 600, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-taylor-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack