Tjepkema v. Rochdale Meat Market

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tjepkema v. Rochdale Meat Market

238 A.D.2d 333, 656 N.Y.S.2d 303, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3428

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 7, 1997·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (LeVine, J.), dated May 17, 1996, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion for summary judgment is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The plaintiff, a professional water meter reader, allegedly injured his back while attempting to close a steel basement door after reading the water meter in the defendants’ basement. He claims that the defendants were negligent, inter alia, in failing to use a lighter door and in failing to provide a warning for those using the door. We disagree.

There is no evidence here that the door was a dangerous instrumentality and the defendants were not obligated to protect users who may use harmless things to cause themselves harm (see, Cuevas v 73rd & Cent. Park W. Corp., 26 AD2d 239, 240, 242, affd 21 NY2d 745). Miller, J. P., Thompson, Joy and Luciano, 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 defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (LeVine, J.), dated May 17, 1996, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion for summary judgment is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The plaintiff, a professional water meter reader, allegedly injured his back while attempting to close a steel basement door after reading the water meter in the defendants’ basement. He claims that the defendants were negligent, inter alia, in failing to use a lighter door and in failing to provide a warning for those using the door. We disagree.

There is no evidence here that the door was a dangerous instrumentality and the defendants were not obligated to protect users who may use harmless things to cause themselves harm (see, Cuevas v 73rd & Cent. Park W. Corp., 26 AD2d 239, 240, 242, affd 21 NY2d 745). Miller, J. P., Thompson, Joy and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Tjepkema v. Rochdale Meat Market, 238 A.D.2d 333, 656 N.Y.S.2d 303, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3428 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

238 A.D.2d 333 (Tjepkema v. Rochdale Meat Market) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related