Zimmardi v. St. Francis Preparatory School

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Zimmardi v. St. Francis Preparatory School

289 A.D.2d 229, 734 N.Y.S.2d 462, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11776

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

DecidedDecember 3, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 289 A.D.2d 229 (Zimmardi v. St. Francis Preparatory School) 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

Zimmardi v. St. Francis Preparatory School, 289 A.D.2d 229, 734 N.Y.S.2d 462, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11776 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Berke, J.), dated June 12, 2000, as granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which [230]*230was for summary judgment dismissing their cause of action under Labor Law § 240 (1).

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contentions, the Supreme Court properly dismissed their Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action because the injured plaintiff’s fall from a ladder was not one of the special risks contemplated by the statute, but rather, a usual or ordinary danger of his particular trade (see, Rodriguez v Tietz Ctr. for Nursing Care, 84 NY2d 841), and the accident was not the result of the absence or inadequacy of any of the safety devices enumerated in the statute (see, Narducci v Manhasset Bay Assocs., 96 NY2d 259). Ritter, J. P., Feuerstein, Townes and Prudenti, 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, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Berke, J.), dated June 12, 2000, as granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which [230]*230was for summary judgment dismissing their cause of action under Labor Law § 240 (1).

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contentions, the Supreme Court properly dismissed their Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action because the injured plaintiff’s fall from a ladder was not one of the special risks contemplated by the statute, but rather, a usual or ordinary danger of his particular trade (see, Rodriguez v Tietz Ctr. for Nursing Care, 84 NY2d 841), and the accident was not the result of the absence or inadequacy of any of the safety devices enumerated in the statute (see, Narducci v Manhasset Bay Assocs., 96 NY2d 259). Ritter, J. P., Feuerstein, Townes and Prudenti, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

289 A.D.2d 229, 734 N.Y.S.2d 462, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11776, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zimmardi-v-st-francis-preparatory-school-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack