Sobelman v. Norstar Bank

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sobelman v. Norstar Bank

226 A.D.2d 444, 641 N.Y.S.2d 39, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3602

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 8, 1996·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Sherwood, J.), dated October 13, 1994, which is in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiff dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The Supreme Court did not err by dismissing the complaint after the close of the plaintiff’s evidence. Although the plaintiff testified that he stepped in a depression on a sand walkway and twisted his back while carrying a 90-pound wall panel, the evidence is insufficient to establish a violation of a specific provision of the Industrial Code (12 NYCRR 1.0 et seq.). Thus, it does not support a claim pursuant to Labor Law § 241 (6) (see, Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 NY2d 494). Moreover, since the plaintiff failed to show that the defendants had actual or constructive notice of the condition that allegedly caused his injuries, there is no basis for liability under Labor Law § 200 (see, Mantovi v Nico Constr. Co., 217 AD2d 650; Kennedy v McKay, 86 AD2d 597). Bracken, J. P., Rosenblatt, O’Brien and Goldstein, 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 from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Sherwood, J.), dated October 13, 1994, which is in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiff dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The Supreme Court did not err by dismissing the complaint after the close of the plaintiff’s evidence. Although the plaintiff testified that he stepped in a depression on a sand walkway and twisted his back while carrying a 90-pound wall panel, the evidence is insufficient to establish a violation of a specific provision of the Industrial Code (12 NYCRR 1.0 et seq.). Thus, it does not support a claim pursuant to Labor Law § 241 (6) (see, Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 NY2d 494). Moreover, since the plaintiff failed to show that the defendants had actual or constructive notice of the condition that allegedly caused his injuries, there is no basis for liability under Labor Law § 200 (see, Mantovi v Nico Constr. Co., 217 AD2d 650; Kennedy v McKay, 86 AD2d 597). Bracken, J. P., Rosenblatt, O’Brien and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Sobelman v. Norstar Bank, 226 A.D.2d 444, 641 N.Y.S.2d 39, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3602 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

226 A.D.2d 444 (Sobelman v. Norstar Bank) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related