From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Martin v. Hoar

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Feb 2, 1990
158 A.D.2d 998 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

February 2, 1990

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Erie County, Ricotta, J.

Present — Boomer, J.P., Green, Pine, Lawton and Davis, JJ.


Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability on his cause of action under Labor Law § 240, asserting that an accident in which he allegedly injured his knee occurred in the manner to which he testified at an examination before trial. In opposition to the motion, third-party defendant submitted the affidavit of plaintiff's foreman, who asserted that plaintiff had told him an entirely different version of how the accident occurred. There were no witnesses to the event. The court properly denied plaintiff's motion because defendant's proof raises an issue of credibility regarding plaintiff's testimony and a finder of fact could reject it entirely (see, Harkins v Felice's of Patchogue, 60 A.D.2d 880).


Summaries of

Martin v. Hoar

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Feb 2, 1990
158 A.D.2d 998 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

Martin v. Hoar

Case Details

Full title:JAMES D. MARTIN, Appellant, v. JAMES S. HOAR, SR., Respondent and…

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

Date published: Feb 2, 1990

Citations

158 A.D.2d 998 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
551 N.Y.S.2d 724

Citing Cases

Johnson v. The Carnegie Hall Corp.

As there is evidence that plaintiff has attributed several different causes to his back injury at issue,…