From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Fielding v. Environmental Resources Management Group

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Sep 29, 1998
253 A.D.2d 713 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

September 29, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Lorraine Miller, J.).


Plaintiff, who was allegedly injured while taking soil samples, has no cause of action under Labor Law § 240 Lab. (1) because elevation was not a factor in his injury ( Rocovich v. Consolidated Edison Co., 78 N.Y.2d 509). Nor is Labor Law § 241 Lab. (6) applicable because plaintiff was not involved in excavation as defined by 12 NYCRR 23-1.4 (b) (19). Finally, there is no merit to plaintiff's argument that the IAS Court erred in entertaining successive motions for summary judgment. New materials, including deposition transcripts, obtained through discovery since the prior round of motion practice rendered the instant motions entirely appropriate ( see, Beagan v. Manhattanville Nursing Care Ctr., 176 A.D.2d 633, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 753).

Concur — Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Wallach and Williams, JJ.


Summaries of

Fielding v. Environmental Resources Management Group

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Sep 29, 1998
253 A.D.2d 713 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Fielding v. Environmental Resources Management Group

Case Details

Full title:PETER FIELDING et al., Appellants, v. ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT…

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

Date published: Sep 29, 1998

Citations

253 A.D.2d 713 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
678 N.Y.S.2d 253

Citing Cases

Scott v. Estrella

See Cohen v. Akabas & Cohen, 79 A.D.3d 460, 917 N.Y.S.2d 117 (1st Dep't 2010). Furthermore, while "successive…

BG Mechanical Corp. v. Vista of New York

The Court notes that the instant motion is not one to reargue, since the movants do not state or argue that…