Werthner v. Chandler Square Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Werthner v. Chandler Square Associates

298 A.D.2d 384, 751 N.Y.S.2d 390, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9459

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

DecidedOctober 7, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 298 A.D.2d 384 (Werthner v. Chandler Square Associates) 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

Werthner v. Chandler Square Associates, 298 A.D.2d 384, 751 N.Y.S.2d 390, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9459 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Chandler Square Associates appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Emerson, J.), entered April 4, 2001, as denied that branch of its motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action insofar as asserted against it, and granted that branch of the plaintiffs cross motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability against it on that cause of action, and the defendant Chandler Square, Inc., appeals from the same order.

Ordered that the appeal by the defendant Chandler Square, Inc., is dismissed as abandoned (see 22 NYCRR 670.8 [c], [e]); and it is further,

Ordered that the order is modified by deleting the provision thereof granting that branch of the cross motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability against the defendant Chandler Square Associates on the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action and substituting therefor a provision denying that branch of the cross motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from by the defendant Chandler Square Associates, without costs or disbursements.

The evidence presented by the plaintiff on the cross motion for summary judgment was insufficient to establish his entitlement to judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action as a matter of law (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562). Therefore, that branch of the cross motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability against the defendant Chandler Square Associates should have been denied.

The remaining contentions of the defendant Chandler Square Associates are without merit. Florio, J.P., Smith, Krausman and Townes, 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 defendant Chandler Square Associates appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Emerson, J.), entered April 4, 2001, as denied that branch of its motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action insofar as asserted against it, and granted that branch of the plaintiffs cross motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability against it on that cause of action, and the defendant Chandler Square, Inc., appeals from the same order.

Ordered that the appeal by the defendant Chandler Square, Inc., is dismissed as abandoned (see 22 NYCRR 670.8 [c], [e]); and it is further,

Ordered that the order is modified by deleting the provision thereof granting that branch of the cross motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability against the defendant Chandler Square Associates on the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action and substituting therefor a provision denying that branch of the cross motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from by the defendant Chandler Square Associates, without costs or disbursements.

The evidence presented by the plaintiff on the cross motion for summary judgment was insufficient to establish his entitlement to judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action as a matter of law (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562). Therefore, that branch of the cross motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability against the defendant Chandler Square Associates should have been denied.

The remaining contentions of the defendant Chandler Square Associates are without merit. Florio, J.P., Smith, Krausman and Townes, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

298 A.D.2d 384, 751 N.Y.S.2d 390, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9459, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/werthner-v-chandler-square-associates-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack