Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001

Chan v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided June 4, 2001

284 A.D.2d 290; 726 N.Y.S.2d 127; 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5646

Cases that cite this one

8 later published cases cite this decision.

Ellerbe v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Nunez v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Nunez v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Cohen v. Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
Buckley v. J.A. Jones/GMO (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
Seepersaud v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
Taglioni v. Harbor Cove Associates (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
Tersigni v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kitzes, J.), dated March 7, 2000, as denied their motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1) against the defendant Alexander’s of Rego Park, Inc.

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

While installing electrical conduit wiring into the ceiling of a mall owned by the defendant Alexander’s of Rego Park, Inc. (hereinafter Alexander’s), Allan Chan (hereinafter the plaintiff) fell from an unsecured A-frame ladder and sustained an injury. At his examination before trial, the plaintiff testified that the ladder tilted, causing him to fall. However, his supervisor testified that on the following day the plaintiff told him during a telephone conversation that he slipped off of the ladder. The plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1), against, among others, Alexander’s.

When a plaintiff is injured from a fall from a ladder that is not shown to be defective, the issue of whether the ladder provided proper protection under Labor Law § 240 (1) is a question of fact for the jury (see, Benefield v Halmar Corp., 264 AD2d 794). Thus, the Supreme Court properly denied the *291plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability against Alexander’s.

The plaintiffs’ remaining contention is without merit. Gold-stein, J. P., McGinity, Schmidt and Smith, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.