Tsaousis v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tsaousis v. State

43 A.D.3d 1377, 841 N.Y.S.2d 919

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

DecidedSeptember 28, 2007

DocketClaim No. 103564

StatusPublished

This text of 43 A.D.3d 1377 (Tsaousis v. State) 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

Tsaousis v. State, 43 A.D.3d 1377, 841 N.Y.S.2d 919 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Court of Claims (Diane L. Fitzpatrick, J.), entered March 28, 2006 in a personal injury action. The order denied claimants’ motion for partial summary judgment.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Claimants commenced this action seeking damages for injuries sustained by John Tsaousis (claimant) when he fell approximately 13 feet to the ground from the platform of a hydraulic lift. The Court of Claims properly denied claimants’ motion seeking partial summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability. Claimants’ own submissions raise triable issues of fact whether defendant violated the statute, whether claimant’s injuries were the result of any such violation, and whether claimant’s conduct was the sole proximate cause of the accident (see Durkin v Long Is. Power Auth., 37 AD3d 400, 401 [2007]; see generally Cahill v Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth., 4 NY3d 35, 40 [2004]; Florio v LLP Realty Corp., 38 AD3d 829, 830 [2007]). Further, defendant’s alleged violation of certain Industrial Code provisions, even if proven by claimants, does not establish as a matter of law that defendant also violated Labor Law § 240 (1) (see Perri v Gilbert Johnson Enters., Ltd., 14 AD3d 681, 684 [2005]). Present—Scudder, P.J., Hurlbutt, Gorski, Centra and Green, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of the Court of Claims (Diane L. Fitzpatrick, J.), entered March 28, 2006 in a personal injury action. The order denied claimants’ motion for partial summary judgment.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Claimants commenced this action seeking damages for injuries sustained by John Tsaousis (claimant) when he fell approximately 13 feet to the ground from the platform of a hydraulic lift. The Court of Claims properly denied claimants’ motion seeking partial summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability. Claimants’ own submissions raise triable issues of fact whether defendant violated the statute, whether claimant’s injuries were the result of any such violation, and whether claimant’s conduct was the sole proximate cause of the accident (see Durkin v Long Is. Power Auth., 37 AD3d 400, 401 [2007]; see generally Cahill v Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth., 4 NY3d 35, 40 [2004]; Florio v LLP Realty Corp., 38 AD3d 829, 830 [2007]). Further, defendant’s alleged violation of certain Industrial Code provisions, even if proven by claimants, does not establish as a matter of law that defendant also violated Labor Law § 240 (1) (see Perri v Gilbert Johnson Enters., Ltd., 14 AD3d 681, 684 [2005]). Present—Scudder, P.J., Hurlbutt, Gorski, Centra and Green, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 A.D.3d 1377, 841 N.Y.S.2d 919, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tsaousis-v-state-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack