From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rossi v. Main-South Hotel Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Dec 21, 1990
168 A.D.2d 964 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

December 21, 1990

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Monroe County, Affronti, J.

Present — Denman, J.P., Boomer, Pine, Balio and Davis, JJ.


Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and motion denied. Memorandum: To be entitled to a judgment on liability for a violation of section 240 (1) of the Labor Law, plaintiff was required to prove, as a matter of law, not only a violation of the section, but also that the violation was a proximate cause of his injuries (see, Bland v. Manocherian, 66 N.Y.2d 452, 459; Avner v. 93rd St. Assn., 147 A.D.2d 414, 415; Heath v. Soloff Constr., 107 A.D.2d 507, 510; Mack v. Altmans Stage Light. Co., 98 A.D.2d 468, 470-471). Supreme Court erred in granting plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on liability under section 240 Lab. of the Labor Law because there is a question of fact whether the claimed violation of the statute occurring in December of 1986 was a proximate cause of his injuries.


Summaries of

Rossi v. Main-South Hotel Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Dec 21, 1990
168 A.D.2d 964 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

Rossi v. Main-South Hotel Associates

Case Details

Full title:JAMES ROSSI et al., Respondents, v. MAIN-SOUTH HOTEL ASSOCIATES et al.…

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

Date published: Dec 21, 1990

Citations

168 A.D.2d 964 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
564 N.Y.S.2d 913

Citing Cases

Stevenson v. Joseph

), Plaintiff has failed to establish as a matter of law that the alleged violation was the proximate cause of…

Pulsifer v. Eastman Kodak Company

Unlike the plaintiff in Bonaparte v Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. ( 188 A.D.2d 853), Pulsifer did not fall at…