FARRELL, JR. v. Okeic
| Decision Date | 21 March 2003 |
| Parties | ALBERT N. FARRELL, JR., Respondent,<BR>v.<BR>JOSEPH OKEIC, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Present — Green, J.P., Pine, Hurlbutt and Lawton, JJ.
It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed with costs.
Plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for injuries he sustained when he fell through the loft of a barn owned by defendant. On a prior appeal, we modified an order granting defendant's cross motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the complaint by denying that part of the cross motion seeking dismissal of the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims and reinstating those claims (Farrell v Okeic, 266 AD2d 892 [1999]). Supreme Court properly denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the reinstated claims. "Initially, we note that successive summary judgment motions `should be discouraged in the absence of a showing of newly discovered evidence or other sufficient cause'" (Town of Wilson v Town of Newfane, 192 AD2d 1095, 1095 [1993]; see Marine Midland Bank v Fisher, 85 AD2d 905, 906 [1981]). Defendant failed to show that the evidence submitted in support of the motion was newly discovered or that it could not have been submitted on the prior cross motion (see Ashford v Rochester Hosp. Serv. Corp., 214 AD2d 954, 955 [1995]). In any event, defendant failed to tender sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of material issues of fact whether plaintiff fell through the area of the loft floor that plaintiff's employer was hired to repair and whether the deteriorated condition of the loft floor was open and obvious (see Farrell, 266 AD2d at 893; see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Town of Angelica v. Smith
...motions should be discouraged in the absence of a showing of newly discovered evidence or other sufficient cause” ( Farrell v. Okeic, 303 A.D.2d 957, 755 N.Y.S.2d 677 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Town of Wilson v. Town of Newfane, 192 A.D.2d 1095, 596 N.Y.S.2d 266). That rule, ho......
-
Hall v. City Fence, Inc.
...“successive motion” rule ( see Farm Family Cas. Ins. Co. v. Brady Farms, Inc., 87 AD3d 1324, 1325–1326 [4th Dept 2011]; Farrell v. Okeic, 303 A.D.2d 957 [4th Dept 2003] ), and also will not bother to analyze whether the instant motion of the County strictly constitutes a proper request for ......
-
Magic Circle Films Int'l, LLC v. Breon
...evidentiary means" ( Vinar v. Litman , 110 A.D.3d 867, 868-869, 972 N.Y.S.2d 704 [2d Dept. 2013] ; see Farrell v. Okeic , 303 A.D.2d 957, 957, 755 N.Y.S.2d 677 [4th Dept. 2003] ). The court properly denied the motion of plaintiff and third-party defendants because they also failed to demons......
- Garigen v. Morrow