From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gonzalez v. Fastflex, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 6, 2000
270 A.D.2d 229 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

Submitted January 31, 2000

March 6, 2000

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Coppola, J.), entered December 7, 1998, which granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Joseph A. Romano, Yonkers, N.Y., for appellant.

Harris, Kelly Goldberg (Carol R. Finocchio, New York, N.Y., of counsel), for respondent.

GUY JAMES MANGANO, P.J., LAWRENCE J. BRACKEN, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, NANCY E. SMITH, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Liability under Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence will not attach when the allegedly dangerous condition of which the plaintiff complains was open and obvious (see, Panetta v. Paramount Communications, 255 A.D.2d 568 ), particularly where, as in the instant case, the plaintiff was actually aware of the condition (see, Tarrazi v. 2025 Richmond Ave. Assocs., 260 A.D.2d 468 ). The plaintiff's arguments raised in opposition to the defendant's motion were either speculative or without merit. Therefore, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

MANGANO, P.J., BRACKEN, LUCIANO, and SMITH, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Gonzalez v. Fastflex, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 6, 2000
270 A.D.2d 229 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Gonzalez v. Fastflex, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:MIGUEL GONZALEZ, appellant, v. FASTFLEX, INC., respondent (and a…

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

Date published: Mar 6, 2000

Citations

270 A.D.2d 229 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
704 N.Y.S.2d 515

Citing Cases

Tulovic v. Chase Manhattan Bank

This court disagrees. The Appellate Division, Second Department, by which this court is bound to follow, has…

Sandler v. Patel

Initially, we note that the defendant's contention that the defective condition was open and obvious was…