Williams v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Williams v. State

71 A.D.3d 505, 895 N.Y.S.2d 820

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

DecidedMarch 16, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 71 A.D.3d 505 (Williams 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

Williams v. State, 71 A.D.3d 505, 895 N.Y.S.2d 820 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Court of Claims (Thomas H. Scuccimarra, J.), entered June 19, 2008, dismissing the claim after a nonjury trial, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[506]*506Claimant, an electrician apprentice employed by an electrical contractor, was injured when struck by a large spool of wire placed near the top of an exterior stairwell that he and his coworkers were using for access to their work area. The court’s finding that claimant failed to prove alleged snowy or icy conditions around the stairwell landing had proximately caused the accident was not against the weight of the credible evidence (see e.g. Watts v State of New York, 25 AD3d 324 [2006]), which showed the accident resulting from where the coworkers had placed the spool of wire, without any mechanism to prevent it from rolling down the steps (cf. D’Avilar v Folks Elec. Inc., 67 AD3d 472, 473 [2009]).

We have considered claimant’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Catterson, Moskowitz and DeGrasse, JJ.

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

Judgment, Court of Claims (Thomas H. Scuccimarra, J.), entered June 19, 2008, dismissing the claim after a nonjury trial, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[506]*506Claimant, an electrician apprentice employed by an electrical contractor, was injured when struck by a large spool of wire placed near the top of an exterior stairwell that he and his coworkers were using for access to their work area. The court’s finding that claimant failed to prove alleged snowy or icy conditions around the stairwell landing had proximately caused the accident was not against the weight of the credible evidence (see e.g. Watts v State of New York, 25 AD3d 324 [2006]), which showed the accident resulting from where the coworkers had placed the spool of wire, without any mechanism to prevent it from rolling down the steps (cf. D’Avilar v Folks Elec. Inc., 67 AD3d 472, 473 [2009]).

We have considered claimant’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Catterson, Moskowitz and DeGrasse, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 A.D.3d 505, 895 N.Y.S.2d 820, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-state-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack