Henry v. Split Rock Rehab. & Health Care Ctr., LLC, 12839

CourtNew York Supreme Court Appellate Division
Citation190 A.D.3d 489,135 N.Y.S.3d 831 (Mem)
Decision Date12 January 2021
Parties Ian HENRY, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. SPLIT ROCK REHABILITATION AND HEALTH CARE CENTER, LLC, Defendant–Appellant, Sheefah Group Realty, LLC, et al., Defendants. Split Rock Rehabilitation and Health Care Center, LLC, et al., Third–Party Plaintiff–Appellant, Sheefah Group Realty LLC, Third–Party Plaintiff, v. Hi Cool, Inc., Third–Party Defendant.
Docket NumberIndex No. 25661/14E,Case No. 2020-02101,12839

190 A.D.3d 489
135 N.Y.S.3d 831 (Mem)

Ian HENRY, Plaintiff–Respondent,
v.
SPLIT ROCK REHABILITATION AND HEALTH CARE CENTER, LLC, Defendant–Appellant,

Sheefah Group Realty, LLC, et al., Defendants.


Split Rock Rehabilitation and Health Care Center, LLC, et al., Third–Party Plaintiff–Appellant,

Sheefah Group Realty LLC, Third–Party Plaintiff,
v.
Hi Cool, Inc., Third–Party Defendant.

12839
Index No. 25661/14E
Case No. 2020-02101

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

ENTERED: January 12, 2021


Caitlin Robin & Associates, PLLC, New York (Arjeta Albani of counsel), for appellant.

Rosenbaum & Rosenbaum, P.C., New York (Mark W. Walsh of counsel), for respondent.

Acosta, P.J., Webber, Gonza´lez, Scarpulla, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Llinet M. Rosado, J.), entered on or about October 4, 2019, which, to the extent appealed from, denied the motion of defendant Split Rock Rehabilitation and Health Care Center, LLC (Split Rock) for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff was employed by third-party defendant Hi Cool, Inc. as an HVAC technician. On January 24, 2014, he was called to defendant Split Rock to inspect a newly installed rooftop air conditioning unit. He was escorted to the electrical room, located on the roof of the premises, by a maintenance worker employed by Split Rock. Plaintiff was injured, purportedly when a circuit breaker in the electrical room exploded.

The motion court properly denied Split Rock's motion for summary judgment, as it failed to eliminate all material issues of fact as to the cause of the accident (see Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562, 427 N.Y.S.2d 595, 404 N.E.2d 718 [1980] ; Madeline D'Anthony Enters., Inc. v. Sokolowsky, 101 A.D.3d 606, 607, 957 N.Y.S.2d 88 [1st Dept. 2012] ). Although defendants' witnesses testified that plaintiff failed to turn off the power to the circuit breaker before performing his work, plaintiff testified that the power was off when the explosion occurred (see Baumann v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 17 A.D.3d 260, 793 N.Y.S.2d 410 [1st Dept. 2005] ).

Generally, a plaintiff is precluded from holding...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 practice notes
  • Johnson v. Asberry, 12851
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • January 12, 2021
    ...12 [1st Dept. 2000] ; Selechnik v. Law Off. of Howard R. Birnbach, 82 A.D.3d 1077, 1078–1079, 920 N.Y.S.2d 128 [2d Dept. 2011] ).135 N.Y.S.3d 831 Plaintiff seeks primarily equitable relief, including an unwinding of the actions taken by Asberry leading up to the freeze-out merger, beginning......
  • Perez v. Live Nation Worldwide, Inc., 13579
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • April 13, 2021
    ...omitted]).We decline the invitation of defendant and amici to announce a new rule prohibiting the practice of anchoring (see Hedges, 190 A.D.3d at 489, 140 N.Y.S.3d 487...
2 cases
  • Johnson v. Asberry, 12851
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • January 12, 2021
    ...12 [1st Dept. 2000] ; Selechnik v. Law Off. of Howard R. Birnbach, 82 A.D.3d 1077, 1078–1079, 920 N.Y.S.2d 128 [2d Dept. 2011] ).135 N.Y.S.3d 831 Plaintiff seeks primarily equitable relief, including an unwinding of the actions taken by Asberry leading up to the freeze-out merger, beginning......
  • Perez v. Live Nation Worldwide, Inc., 13579
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • April 13, 2021
    ...omitted]).We decline the invitation of defendant and amici to announce a new rule prohibiting the practice of anchoring (see Hedges, 190 A.D.3d at 489, 140 N.Y.S.3d 487...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT