From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McKinney v. Setteducatti

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 26, 1992
183 A.D.2d 879 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

May 26, 1992

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Brucia, J.).


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

Pursuant to the terms of a contract between the defendants and the plaintiff's employer, the plaintiff was hired to install new roof shingles upon the defendants' roof. In the course of this job the plaintiff put up scaffolding planks secured to the underlying roof structure. The plaintiff was allegedly injured when one of the planks upon which he was standing came loose from the roof structure, causing the plaintiff to fall off the roof.

The plaintiff's complaint attributed the accident to the defendants' alleged negligence in permitting a dangerous condition, i.e., a deteriorated roof structure, to exist upon their premises and failing to give notice of its existence. In their motion for summary judgment the defendants argued that the plaintiff had assumed this risk since it was inherent in the work that the plaintiff's employer had been engaged to perform.

The Supreme Court denied summary judgment, finding that, based upon the contract, there is a material and triable issue of fact as to whether the condition of the underlying roof structure was so inherently connected with the proposed work as to constitute a risk which the plaintiff assumed by undertaking the work. We agree.

Upon a motion for summary judgment the court's function is one of issue-finding rather than issue determination (see, Sillman v Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 3 N.Y.2d 395; see also, Rotuba Extruders v. Ceppos, 46 N.Y.2d 223). Upon the record before us there appears, inter alia, a triable issue of fact as to whether or not the plaintiff was injured as a result of a defect within the scope of the job which he agreed to perform (see, Baum v. Rowland, 281 App. Div. 964). Accordingly, the potential application of the doctrine of assumption of risk involves factual issues better left to resolution after trial (see, Henig v. Hofstra Univ., 160 A.D.2d 761). Mangano, P.J., Bracken, Pizzuto and Santucci, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

McKinney v. Setteducatti

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 26, 1992
183 A.D.2d 879 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

McKinney v. Setteducatti

Case Details

Full title:DAVID B. McKINNEY, Respondent, v. BELTRANY SETTEDUCATTI et al., Appellants

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

Date published: May 26, 1992

Citations

183 A.D.2d 879 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
584 N.Y.S.2d 130

Citing Cases

GSD Prod. Servs., Inc. v. Vigilant Ins. Co.

Such evidence may include deposition transcripts, as well as other proof annexed to an attorney's affirmation…

Toriola v. Ha Dong Hyun

However, other principles of law have been overlooked in the process. The function of the court upon a…