From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Patterson v. Kummar Development Corporation

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Dec 27, 2000
278 A.D.2d 855 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

December 27, 2000.

Appeals from Order of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Koshian, J. — Summary Judgment.

PRESENT: HAYES, J.P., HURLBUTT, SCUDDER, KEHOE AND LAWTON, JJ.


Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following

Memorandum:

Supreme Court properly denied defendants' cross motion for partial summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim but erred in denying plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on that claim. Plaintiffs established that James Patterson (plaintiff) fell from an elevated surface due to the absence of any safety devices ( see generally, Rocovich v Consolidated Edison Co., 78 N.Y.2d 509, 513), and defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Defendants submitted no evidence to support their contention that the actions of plaintiff were "the sole proximate cause of his injuries" ( Weininger v. Hagedorn Co.,; 91 N.Y.2d 958, 960, rearg denied 92 N.Y.2d 875). We thus modify the order by granting plaintiffs' motion.


Summaries of

Patterson v. Kummar Development Corporation

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Dec 27, 2000
278 A.D.2d 855 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Patterson v. Kummar Development Corporation

Case Details

Full title:JAMES PATTERSON AND ELOISE PATTERSON, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS-RESPONDENTS…

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

Date published: Dec 27, 2000

Citations

278 A.D.2d 855 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
721 N.Y.S.2d 433