Smith v. Yonkers Contracting Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Smith v. Yonkers Contracting Co.

49 A.D.3d 857, 853 N.Y.2d 906

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

DecidedMarch 25, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 49 A.D.3d 857 (Smith v. Yonkers Contracting 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. Yonkers Contracting Co., 49 A.D.3d 857, 853 N.Y.2d 906 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

The Supreme Court correctly granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1). The plaintiffs established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence sufficient to demonstrate that the defendant failed to provide adequate safety devices and that its violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) was a proximate cause of the injuries incurred (see Felker v Corning Inc., 90 NY2d 219, 224 [1997]; Tylman v School Constr. Auth., 3 AD3d 488, 489 [2004]; Ramos v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 306 AD2d 147, 148 [2003]; Nephew v [858]*858Barcomb, 260 AD2d 821, 823 [1999]; see also Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). In opposition, the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d at 324; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). Fisher, J.P., Miller, McCarthy and Chambers, JJ., concur.

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

The Supreme Court correctly granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1). The plaintiffs established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence sufficient to demonstrate that the defendant failed to provide adequate safety devices and that its violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) was a proximate cause of the injuries incurred (see Felker v Corning Inc., 90 NY2d 219, 224 [1997]; Tylman v School Constr. Auth., 3 AD3d 488, 489 [2004]; Ramos v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 306 AD2d 147, 148 [2003]; Nephew v [858]*858Barcomb, 260 AD2d 821, 823 [1999]; see also Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). In opposition, the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d at 324; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). Fisher, J.P., Miller, McCarthy and Chambers, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 A.D.3d 857, 853 N.Y.2d 906, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-yonkers-contracting-co-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack