Villanueva v. Professional Environmental System, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Villanueva v. Professional Environmental System, Inc.

49 A.D.3d 526, 855 N.Y.2d 152

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

DecidedMarch 4, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 49 A.D.3d 526 (Villanueva v. Professional Environmental System, 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

Villanueva v. Professional Environmental System, Inc., 49 A.D.3d 526, 855 N.Y.2d 152 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

The injured plaintiff allegedly was struck by a sheet of loose plywood while inspecting the roof of his employer’s building. Pursuant to a contract with the injured plaintiffs employer, the defendant had been replacing heating, ventilation, and air conditioning units on the roof of the building, and it had left various materials, including plywood, on the roof of the building. The injured plaintiff alleged that heavy wind was blowing on the day of the accident.

The defendant failed to establish, prima facie, its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]). Triable issues of fact exist, inter alia, as to whether the defendant adequately secured its equipment. Since the defendant never met its initial burden as the movant, we need not review the sufficiency of the plaintiffs’ opposition papers (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 [1985]). Spolzino, J.P., Santucci, Angiolillo and Garni, JJ., concur.

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

The injured plaintiff allegedly was struck by a sheet of loose plywood while inspecting the roof of his employer’s building. Pursuant to a contract with the injured plaintiffs employer, the defendant had been replacing heating, ventilation, and air conditioning units on the roof of the building, and it had left various materials, including plywood, on the roof of the building. The injured plaintiff alleged that heavy wind was blowing on the day of the accident.

The defendant failed to establish, prima facie, its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]). Triable issues of fact exist, inter alia, as to whether the defendant adequately secured its equipment. Since the defendant never met its initial burden as the movant, we need not review the sufficiency of the plaintiffs’ opposition papers (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 [1985]). Spolzino, J.P., Santucci, Angiolillo and Garni, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 A.D.3d 526, 855 N.Y.2d 152, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/villanueva-v-professional-environmental-system-inc-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack