Steves v. Campus Industries

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Steves v. Campus Industries

288 A.D.2d 914, 732 N.Y.S.2d 821, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10772

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

DecidedNovember 9, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 288 A.D.2d 914 (Steves v. Campus Industries) 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

Steves v. Campus Industries, 288 A.D.2d 914, 732 N.Y.S.2d 821, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10772 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed with [915]*915costs. Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for injuries he sustained when he fell from a platform at the top of an interior ladder leading to the roof of defendant’s building. The ladder was permanently affixed to the building. At the time of the accident, plaintiff was descending from the roof after assisting in installing a sign above the doorway of the premises leased from defendant by plaintiff’s employer. Supreme Court properly granted plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) and denied that part of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing that claim. We reject defendant’s contention that plaintiff is not entitled to the protection of the statute. Contrary to the contentions of defendant, we conclude that it is an “owner” within the meaning of Labor Law § 240 (1) (see, Coleman v City of New York, 91 NY2d 821, 822-823; Gordon v Eastern Ry. Supply, 82 NY2d 555, 560), plaintiff is a “person so employed” within the meaning of that section (see, Lawyer v Rotterdam Ventures, 204 AD2d 878, 879-880, Iv dismissed 84 NY2d 864; see also, Seguin v Massena Aluminum Recovery Co., 229 AD2d 839, 840; cf, Mordkofsky v V.C.V. Dev. Corp., 76 NY2d 573, 576-577) and installing the sign is a protected activity under the statute (see, Buckley v Radovich, 211 AD2d 652; Lawyer v Rotterdam Ventures, supra, at 879). We further conclude that “[t]here is no view of the evidence that the violation of [defendant’s] statutory duty was not a proximate cause of plaintiff’s accident” (Kazmierczak v Town of Clarence, 286 AD2d 955, 956). Defendant’s contention that the accident resulted from plaintiff’s election to step onto the platform rather than the ladder merely raises an issue with regard to contributory negligence, which has no bearing on defendant’s liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) (see, Kazmierczak v Town of Clarence, supra; Haystrand v County of Ontario, 207 AD2d 978). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, O’Donnell, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Green, Wisner, Kehoe and Burns, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed with [915]*915costs. Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for injuries he sustained when he fell from a platform at the top of an interior ladder leading to the roof of defendant’s building. The ladder was permanently affixed to the building. At the time of the accident, plaintiff was descending from the roof after assisting in installing a sign above the doorway of the premises leased from defendant by plaintiff’s employer. Supreme Court properly granted plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) and denied that part of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing that claim. We reject defendant’s contention that plaintiff is not entitled to the protection of the statute. Contrary to the contentions of defendant, we conclude that it is an “owner” within the meaning of Labor Law § 240 (1) (see, Coleman v City of New York, 91 NY2d 821, 822-823; Gordon v Eastern Ry. Supply, 82 NY2d 555, 560), plaintiff is a “person so employed” within the meaning of that section (see, Lawyer v Rotterdam Ventures, 204 AD2d 878, 879-880, Iv dismissed 84 NY2d 864; see also, Seguin v Massena Aluminum Recovery Co., 229 AD2d 839, 840; cf, Mordkofsky v V.C.V. Dev. Corp., 76 NY2d 573, 576-577) and installing the sign is a protected activity under the statute (see, Buckley v Radovich, 211 AD2d 652; Lawyer v Rotterdam Ventures, supra, at 879). We further conclude that “[t]here is no view of the evidence that the violation of [defendant’s] statutory duty was not a proximate cause of plaintiff’s accident” (Kazmierczak v Town of Clarence, 286 AD2d 955, 956). Defendant’s contention that the accident resulted from plaintiff’s election to step onto the platform rather than the ladder merely raises an issue with regard to contributory negligence, which has no bearing on defendant’s liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) (see, Kazmierczak v Town of Clarence, supra; Haystrand v County of Ontario, 207 AD2d 978). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, O’Donnell, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Green, Wisner, Kehoe and Burns, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

288 A.D.2d 914, 732 N.Y.S.2d 821, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10772, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/steves-v-campus-industries-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack