From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Martin v. State

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Mar 7, 2017
148 A.D.3d 439 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)

Opinion

03-07-2017

Seth MARTIN, Claimant–Respondent, v. The STATE of New York, Respondent–Appellant.

Cartafalsa, Slattery, Turpin & Lenoff, New York (Michael Lenoff of counsel), for appellant. Sacks and Sacks LLP, New York (Scott N. Singer of counsel), for respondent.


Cartafalsa, Slattery, Turpin & Lenoff, New York (Michael Lenoff of counsel), for appellant.

Sacks and Sacks LLP, New York (Scott N. Singer of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Court of Claims of the State of New York (David A. Weinstein, J.), entered June 16, 2016, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied the branch of respondent State of New York's motion for summary judgment that sought dismissal of claimant's Labor Law § 241(6) claims predicated on violations of Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) §§ 23–2.3(c), 23–8.2(c)(3) and 23–8.1(f)(2)(i), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The Court of Claims correctly decided that an issue of fact exists concerning whether the State provided tag lines for claimant's use in moving the steel I–beam across the Alexander Hamilton Bridge and whether the absence of tag lines was a proximate cause of claimant's injury (see Rizzuto v. L.A. Wenger Contr. Co., 91 N.Y.2d 343, 350, 670 N.Y.S.2d 816, 693 N.E.2d 1068 [1998] ).

ACOSTA, J.P., RICHTER, MANZANET–DANIELS, GISCHE, WEBBER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Martin v. State

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Mar 7, 2017
148 A.D.3d 439 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)
Case details for

Martin v. State

Case Details

Full title:Seth MARTIN, Claimant–Respondent, v. The STATE of New York…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: Mar 7, 2017

Citations

148 A.D.3d 439 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)
148 A.D.3d 439

Citing Cases

MacGregor v. MRMD NY Corp.

The Appellate Division, First Department, has held that section 23-2.3 (c) of the Industrial Code is specific…

Kelly v. NYU Langone Med. Ctr.

Defendants contend, in their cross motion, that this section was not violated based upon plaintiff's own…