Walters v. Ernest Hansen & Son, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Walters v. Ernest Hansen & Son, Inc.

73 A.D.2d 618, 422 N.Y.S.2d 458, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14426

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

DecidedDecember 10, 1979

StatusPublished

This text of 73 A.D.2d 618 (Walters v. Ernest Hansen & Son, 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

Walters v. Ernest Hansen & Son, Inc., 73 A.D.2d 618, 422 N.Y.S.2d 458, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14426 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered August 15, 1978, which is in favor of defendants and the third-party defendant, upon the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint at the close of the plaintiff’s case, for failure to make out a prima facie case, at a jury trial. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial granted as to all parties and causes, with costs to abide the event. On the testimony presented, a jury could find that the accident occurred because the ladder which plaintiff was descending was not properly constructed and placed, and that the defendants were liable for plaintiff’s injuries under section 240 of the Labor Law. It was therefore error for the trial court to dismiss the complaint at the close of the plaintiffs case (see Raimes v New York Tel. Co., 46 NY2d 132; Cardile v D’Ambrosia, 72 AD2d 544). Damiani, J. P., Gulotta, Cohalan and Margett, 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, plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered August 15, 1978, which is in favor of defendants and the third-party defendant, upon the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint at the close of the plaintiff’s case, for failure to make out a prima facie case, at a jury trial. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial granted as to all parties and causes, with costs to abide the event. On the testimony presented, a jury could find that the accident occurred because the ladder which plaintiff was descending was not properly constructed and placed, and that the defendants were liable for plaintiff’s injuries under section 240 of the Labor Law. It was therefore error for the trial court to dismiss the complaint at the close of the plaintiffs case (see Raimes v New York Tel. Co., 46 NY2d 132; Cardile v D’Ambrosia, 72 AD2d 544). Damiani, J. P., Gulotta, Cohalan and Margett, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

73 A.D.2d 618, 422 N.Y.S.2d 458, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14426, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walters-v-ernest-hansen-son-inc-nyappdiv-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack