Stewart v. Playland Center, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Stewart v. Playland Center, Inc.

8 A.D.3d 74, 778 N.Y.S.2d 159, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7950

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

DecidedJune 10, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 8 A.D.3d 74 (Stewart v. Playland Center, Inc.) 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

Stewart v. Playland Center, Inc., 8 A.D.3d 74, 778 N.Y.S.2d 159, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7950 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Nelson S. Roman, J.), entered on or about June 4, 2003, which, inter alia, denied plaintiffs motion for summary judgment as to liability upon his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff, while employed as a carpenter at a renovation project, fell from a ladder he was using in framing a wall. While it is clear that the ladder, which had a defective rung, did not provide protection in accordance with Labor Law § 240 (1), the testimony of plaintiffs employer to the effect that shortly before the accident plaintiff had been specifically instructed to use an available scissor lift instead of a ladder to perform his assigned task was sufficient to raise a triable issue as to whether plaintiff was a “recalcitrant worker” (see Gordon v Eastern Ry. Supply, 82 NY2d 555, 562 [1993]). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Lerner, Friedman, Marlow and Sweeny, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Nelson S. Roman, J.), entered on or about June 4, 2003, which, inter alia, denied plaintiffs motion for summary judgment as to liability upon his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff, while employed as a carpenter at a renovation project, fell from a ladder he was using in framing a wall. While it is clear that the ladder, which had a defective rung, did not provide protection in accordance with Labor Law § 240 (1), the testimony of plaintiffs employer to the effect that shortly before the accident plaintiff had been specifically instructed to use an available scissor lift instead of a ladder to perform his assigned task was sufficient to raise a triable issue as to whether plaintiff was a “recalcitrant worker” (see Gordon v Eastern Ry. Supply, 82 NY2d 555, 562 [1993]). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Lerner, Friedman, Marlow and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 A.D.3d 74, 778 N.Y.S.2d 159, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7950, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stewart-v-playland-center-inc-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack