Beshay v. Eberhart L.P. #1
| Decision Date | 19 January 2010 |
| Docket Number | 2009-02990 |
| Citation | 2010 NY Slip Op 461,69 A.D.3d 779,893 N.Y.S.2d 242 |
| Parties | MAGID BESHAY et al., Appellants, v. EBERHART L.P. #1 et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
v.
EBERHART L.P. #1 et al., Respondents.
[69 A.D.3d 780]
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hart, J.), entered February 23, 2009, which, upon the granting of the motion of the defendant Eberhart L.P. #1 and the separate motion of the defendants Robert Bosch Tool Corp. and Bosch Tool Corp. pursuant to CPLR 4401 (a) for judgment as a matter of law, both made at the close of the plaintiffs' opening statement, is in favor of the defendants and against them, dismissing the complaint.
Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, (1) by deleting the provisions thereof dismissing the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence causes of action, and the derivative cause of action based thereon, insofar as asserted against the defendant Eberhart L.P. #1, and (2), by deleting the provision thereof dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendants Robert Bosch Tool Corp. and Bosch Tool Corp.; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs payable to the plaintiffs by the defendants appearing separately and filing separate briefs, those branches of the motion of the defendant Eberhart L.P. #1 which were pursuant to CPLR 4401 (a) for judgment as a matter of law with respect to the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence causes of action, and the derivative cause of action based thereon, are denied, the separate motion of the defendants Robert Bosch Tool Corp. and Bosch Tool Corp. pursuant to CPLR 4401 (a) for judgment as a matter of law is denied, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a new trial in accordance herewith.
The plaintiff Magid Beshay allegedly was injured at a work site when a piece of flying debris struck him in the left eye. The debris allegedly was a piece of a circular saw blade. At the time, the saw was being operated by a coworker of Magid's. Magid and his wife, suing derivatively, commenced this action against the owner of the subject premises, the defendant Eberhart L.P. #1 (hereinafter Eberhart). As relevant here, the plaintiffs asserted Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1) and § 241 (6), and common-law negligence causes of action against Eberhart. The Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Okunubi v. City of N.Y.
...her case that the court was justified in awarding judgment as a matter of law to one or more defendants” ( Beshay v. Eberhart L.P. No. 1, 69 A.D.3d 779, 781, 893 N.Y.S.2d 242;see Ballantyne v. City of New York, 19 A.D.3d 440, 797 N.Y.S.2d 506;Schomaker v. Pecoraro, 237 A.D.2d 424, 425–26, 6......
-
Stolarski v. Family Servs. of Westchester, Inc.
...made at any time ( see Butler v. Catinella, 58 A.D.3d 145, 151, 868 N.Y.S.2d 101), even during trial ( see e.g. Beshay v. Eberhart L.P. #1, 69 A.D.3d 779, 781, 893 N.Y.S.2d 242). However, when dismissal is sought for failure to state a cause of action, “the court will ‘accept the facts as a......
-
Fudge v. N. Shore-Long Island Jewish Health Servs. Plainview
...case that the court was justified in awarding judgment as a matter of law to one or more defendants” ( Beshay v. Eberhart, L.P. No. 1, 69 A.D.3d 779, 781, 893 N.Y.S.2d 242 [emphasis added]; see Westchester Mall, LLC v. Hedvat, 104 A.D.3d 678, 679, 961 N.Y.S.2d 214;Ballantyne v. City of New ......
-
Willis v. Plaza Constr. Corp.
...raises a question of fact as to whether plaintiff was provided with and used proper eye protection (cf. Beshay v. Eberhart L.P. # 1, 69 A.D.3d 779, 781, 893 N.Y.S.2d 242 [2d Dept.2010] [the plaintiffs' counsel's admission that the plaintiff worker removed the protective eye gear before bein......
-
Judicial conduct
...344 (4th Dept. 2016). A court should not dismiss a complaint before the plaintiff completes her proof. Beshay v. Eberhart L.P. No. 1, 69 A.D.3d 779, 893 N.Y.S.2d 242 (2d Dept. 2010) (only one of plaintiff ’s claims should have been dismissed); Jean-Louis v. City of New York, 60 A.D.3d 737, ......
-
Opening statement
...37 (1st Dept. 2016); Westchester Mall, LLC v. Hedvat , 104 A.D. 3d678, 961 NYS 2d 214 (2d Dept. 2013); Beshay v. Eberhart L.P. No. 1 , 69 A.D. 3d 779, 893 N.Y.S. 2d 242 (2d Dept. 2010); Ballantyne v. City of New York , 19 A.D.3d 440, 797 N.Y.S. 2d 506 (2d Dept. 2005); Clifford v. Sachem Cen......