Plaintiff denied summary judgment where his EBT testimony and affidavit stated that a wire tying the scaffold to the building snapped as he attempted to climb from the roof onto the scaffold and the ladder moved contrasted with his supervisor’s testimony that the plaintiff told him that he fell when his foot slipped as he tried to step on to the scaffold from the roof. There was also a question of fact regarding whether the plaintiff refused to use safety ropes with the safety harness he was wearing. There were two concurrences in the result differing in their opinion that mis-stepping onto the scaffold would have not have changed the issue of causation. Albino v 221-223 W. 82 Owners Corp.
Plaintiff, a person with a serious mental disorder and cognitive impairment, sustained injuries after leaving the residential facility for disabled adults which had an “open door” policy. The lower court properly granted summary judgment to the defendants on defendants’ proof that the plaintiff had been evaluated on numerous occasions by doctors outside of the facility who all agreed that his placement in the adult home with an open door policy was appropriate. Plaintiff’s expert failed to show any alternative placement or violation of any statute or regulation. Denial of leave to amend the complaint more than a year after note of issue was a provident exercise of discretion. Miranda v Riverdale Manor Home for Adults
The lower court’s grant of summary judgment to the plaintiff was modified to deny summary judgment finding a question of fact as to whether plaintiff was engaged in an enumerated activity under labor law §240 (repair) or maintenance when he was changing light bulbs and repairing burned-out ballasts. Gopie v Mutual of Am. Life Ins. Co.
|IF YOU MUST READ