Sofia v. Carlucci

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sofia v. Carlucci

122 A.D.2d 263, 505 N.Y.S.2d 178, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 59605

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

DecidedJuly 28, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 122 A.D.2d 263 (Sofia v. Carlucci) 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

Sofia v. Carlucci, 122 A.D.2d 263, 505 N.Y.S.2d 178, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 59605 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Donovan, J.), entered July 22, 1985, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Order reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, motion granted, and complaint dismissed.

The plaintiff Thomas Sofia was injured when he fell from a scaffold that his employer, the third-party defendant, had borrowed from the defendant. Although the record suggests that the absence of safety railings may have contributed to the happening of the accident, there is no evidence that the defendant was anything but a bailor of the scaffold in disassembled form.

A gratuitous bailor may be under a duty to warn of a defect or hazard of which it has actual knowledge (see, Daoust v Palmenteri, 109 AD2d 774; Galbraith v Pike & Son, 18 AD2d 39; 9 NY Jur 2d, Bailments and Chattel Leases, § 76, at 88-89). However, liability may not rest upon a theory that a supplier of a chattel owes a duty, extending to all foreseeable users, of reasonable care in furnishing safe chattels where the alleged defect is patent (Sarnoff v Charles Schad, Inc., 22 NY2d 180, 186). Since the absence of safety railings cannot be considered either a latent defect or a hidden danger (see, Inman v Binghamton Hous. Auth., 3 NY2d 137), the defendant must be granted summary judgment. Lawrence, J. P., Eiber, Kunzeman and Kooper, JJ., concur.

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

— In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Donovan, J.), entered July 22, 1985, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Order reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, motion granted, and complaint dismissed.

The plaintiff Thomas Sofia was injured when he fell from a scaffold that his employer, the third-party defendant, had borrowed from the defendant. Although the record suggests that the absence of safety railings may have contributed to the happening of the accident, there is no evidence that the defendant was anything but a bailor of the scaffold in disassembled form.

A gratuitous bailor may be under a duty to warn of a defect or hazard of which it has actual knowledge (see, Daoust v Palmenteri, 109 AD2d 774; Galbraith v Pike & Son, 18 AD2d 39; 9 NY Jur 2d, Bailments and Chattel Leases, § 76, at 88-89). However, liability may not rest upon a theory that a supplier of a chattel owes a duty, extending to all foreseeable users, of reasonable care in furnishing safe chattels where the alleged defect is patent (Sarnoff v Charles Schad, Inc., 22 NY2d 180, 186). Since the absence of safety railings cannot be considered either a latent defect or a hidden danger (see, Inman v Binghamton Hous. Auth., 3 NY2d 137), the defendant must be granted summary judgment. Lawrence, J. P., Eiber, Kunzeman and Kooper, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

122 A.D.2d 263, 505 N.Y.S.2d 178, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 59605, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sofia-v-carlucci-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack