Woodworth v. American Ref-Fuel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Woodworth v. American Ref-Fuel

295 A.D.2d 942, 744 N.Y.S.2d 589, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6300

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

DecidedJune 14, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 295 A.D.2d 942 (Woodworth v. American Ref-Fuel) 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

Woodworth v. American Ref-Fuel, 295 A.D.2d 942, 744 N.Y.S.2d 589, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6300 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from an order of Supreme Court, Erie County (Notaro, J.), entered April 20, 2001, which granted plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed on the law without costs and the motion is denied.

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for injuries that he sustained when he allegedly fell from a ladder in the course of his employment as a boilermaker. Supreme Court erred in granting plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1). Although plaintiff met his initial burden by establishing

[943]*943that the ladder “slid out,” causing him to fall from a height of “three or four” rungs, defendant raised an issue of fact whether plaintiff fell from a ladder. Despite the fact that plaintiffs version is supported by several coworkers, none of whom witnessed the accident, defendant submitted evidence establishing that, immediately after the accident, plaintiff told defendant’s “safety man,” the ambulance crew, and hospital employees that he had “slipped on plywood.” Defendant’s safety and training supervisor who was at the accident scene within “thirty seconds and a minute” stated in an affidavit that he did not see a ladder, nor did anyone at the scene inform him that plaintiff had been using a ladder in the performance of his duties at the time of the accident. Here, the accident was unwitnessed and there are conflicting versions of how the accident occurred, including plaintiffs own conflicting statements. Because the conflicting versions raise an issue of fact concerning liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1), plaintiffs motion should have been denied (see Abramo v Pepsi-Cola Buffalo Bottling Co., 224 AD2d 980, 981; see also Finnigan v Rochester Inst, of Tech., 277 AD2d 892). Present—Green, J.P., Hurlbutt, Scudder, Kehoe and Gorski, JJ.

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

—Appeal from an order of Supreme Court, Erie County (Notaro, J.), entered April 20, 2001, which granted plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed on the law without costs and the motion is denied.

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for injuries that he sustained when he allegedly fell from a ladder in the course of his employment as a boilermaker. Supreme Court erred in granting plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1). Although plaintiff met his initial burden by establishing

[943]*943that the ladder “slid out,” causing him to fall from a height of “three or four” rungs, defendant raised an issue of fact whether plaintiff fell from a ladder. Despite the fact that plaintiffs version is supported by several coworkers, none of whom witnessed the accident, defendant submitted evidence establishing that, immediately after the accident, plaintiff told defendant’s “safety man,” the ambulance crew, and hospital employees that he had “slipped on plywood.” Defendant’s safety and training supervisor who was at the accident scene within “thirty seconds and a minute” stated in an affidavit that he did not see a ladder, nor did anyone at the scene inform him that plaintiff had been using a ladder in the performance of his duties at the time of the accident. Here, the accident was unwitnessed and there are conflicting versions of how the accident occurred, including plaintiffs own conflicting statements. Because the conflicting versions raise an issue of fact concerning liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1), plaintiffs motion should have been denied (see Abramo v Pepsi-Cola Buffalo Bottling Co., 224 AD2d 980, 981; see also Finnigan v Rochester Inst, of Tech., 277 AD2d 892). Present—Green, J.P., Hurlbutt, Scudder, Kehoe and Gorski, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

295 A.D.2d 942, 744 N.Y.S.2d 589, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6300, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/woodworth-v-american-ref-fuel-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack