From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Chan v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 4, 2001
284 A.D.2d 290 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Summary

affirming denial of plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment as to liability under Labor Law § 240 where plaintiff allegedly told his supervisor that he "slipped off of the ladder"

Summary of this case from Buckley v. J.A. Jones/GMO

Opinion

Argued May 10, 2001.

June 4, 2001

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kitzes, J.), dated March 7, 2000, as denied their motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240(1) against the defendant Alexander's of Rego Park, Inc.

Robert G. Spevack, New York, N.Y., for appellants.

Curtis, Vasile, Devine McElhenny, Merrick, N.Y. (Marianne Arcieri of counsel), for respondent.

Before: GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, J.P., LEO F. McGINITY, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, NANCY E. SMITH, JJ.


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

While installing electrical conduit wiring into the ceiling of a mall owned by the defendant Alexander's of Rego Park, Inc. (hereinafter Alexander's), Allan Chan (hereinafter the plaintiff) fell from an unsecured A-frame ladder and sustained an injury. At his examination before trial, the plaintiff testified that the ladder tilted, causing him to fall. However, his supervisor testified that on the following day the plaintiff told him during a telephone conversation that he slipped off of the ladder. The plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240(1), against, among others, Alexander's.

When a plaintiff is injured from a fall from a ladder that is not shown to be defective, the issue of whether the ladder provided proper protection under Labor Law § 240(1) is a question of fact for the jury (see, Benefield v. Halmar Corp., 264 A.D.2d 794). Thus, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability against Alexander's.

The plaintiffs' remaining contention is without merit.

GOLDSTEIN, J.P., McGINITY, SCHMIDT and SMITH, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Chan v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 4, 2001
284 A.D.2d 290 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

affirming denial of plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment as to liability under Labor Law § 240 where plaintiff allegedly told his supervisor that he "slipped off of the ladder"

Summary of this case from Buckley v. J.A. Jones/GMO

affirming denial of plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment as to liability under Labor Law § 240 where plaintiff allegedly told his supervisor that he "slipped off of the ladder"

Summary of this case from Hurley v. Best Buy Stores, L.P.
Case details for

Chan v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:ALLAN CHAN, ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. BED BATH BEYOND, INC., ET AL.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jun 4, 2001

Citations

284 A.D.2d 290 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
726 N.Y.S.2d 127

Citing Cases

Merino v. Cont'l Towers Condo.

Courts will deny summary-judgment motions if issues of fact exist about whether the accident occurred solely…

Ung Jin Kim v. Twin Deer Grp., LLC.

The cross-motion by plaintiffs for summary judgment in their favor is denied. Where, as here, an employee is…