Sobol v. K Mart Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sobol v. K Mart Corp.

275 A.D.2d 974, 715 N.Y.S.2d 193, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9503

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided September 29, 2000·Published

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied that part of defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. Defendants failed to establish as a matter of law that plaintiff was injured in the course of performing routine maintenance rather than repairing the sign (see, Smith v Shell Oil Co., 85 NY2d 1000, 1002; Izrailev v Ficarra Furniture, 70 NY2d 813, 815). (Appeals from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, O’Donnell, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Hayes, Hurlbutt, Scudder and Lawton, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied that part of defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. Defendants failed to establish as a matter of law that plaintiff was injured in the course of performing routine maintenance rather than repairing the sign (see, Smith v Shell Oil Co., 85 NY2d 1000, 1002; Izrailev v Ficarra Furniture, 70 NY2d 813, 815). (Appeals from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, O’Donnell, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Hayes, Hurlbutt, Scudder and Lawton, JJ.

Sobol v. K Mart Corp., 275 A.D.2d 974, 715 N.Y.S.2d 193, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9503 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

275 A.D.2d 974 (Sobol v. K Mart Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related