Plotnick v. Wok's Kitchen Incorporated
| Decision Date | 01 August 2005 |
| Docket Number | 2004-10953. |
| Citation | 2005 NY Slip Op 06202,800 N.Y.S.2d 37,21 A.D.3d 358 |
| Parties | DAVID PLOTNICK et al., Respondents, v. WOK'S KITCHEN INCORPORATED, Defendant, and MAGIC EXTERMINATING CO., INC., et al., Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the causes of action to recover damages for violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) are dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellants, and those branches of the cross motion which were for summary judgment on those causes of action insofar as asserted against the appellants are denied.
On March 15, 2001, the plaintiff David Plotnick (hereinafter the plaintiff), was performing roofing work on a building owned by the appellants in Queens. During the project, the appellants' employee asked him to go inside the restaurant of the defendant Wok's Kitchen Incorporated, which was located in the building to ascertain whether a space heater installed in the ceiling should be removed. While looking upward at the heater, the plaintiff took a step, and in so doing, fell into an unguarded and uncovered stairwell opening, and landed midway down the staircase. The plaintiff allegedly sustained personal injuries as a result of the accident.
The plaintiffs commenced this action to recover damages, inter alia, for violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6). The appellants moved to dismiss those causes of action and the plaintiffs cross-moved, among other things, for summary judgment on those causes of action.
The Supreme Court should have granted the motion and denied those branches of the plaintiffs' cross motion which were for summary judgment on the cause of action to recover damages for violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6). While the staircase may have been negligently left...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carey v. Five Bros., Inc.
...A.D.3d 1128, 1128–1129, 940 N.Y.S.2d 170;Meslin v. New York Post, 30 A.D.3d 309, 310, 817 N.Y.S.2d 279;Plotnick v. Wok's Kitchen, Inc., 21 A.D.3d 358, 359, 800 N.Y.S.2d 37;Aquilino v. E.W. Howell Co., Inc., 7 A.D.3d 739, 740, 776 N.Y.S.2d 893;Edwards v. C & D Unlimited, 289 A.D.2d 370, 372,......
-
Spence v. Island Estates at Mt. Sinai II, LLC
...risk ( see Nieves v. Five Boro A.C. & Refrig. Corp., 93 N.Y.2d 914, 916, 690 N.Y.S.2d 852, 712 N.E.2d 1219; Plotnick v. Wok's Kitchen Inc., 21 A.D.3d 358, 800 N.Y.S.2d 37; Aquilino v. E.W. Howell Co., Inc., 7 A.D.3d 739, 776 N.Y.S.2d 893; Alvia v. Teman Elec. Contr., 287 A.D.2d 421, 731 N.Y......
-
Pope v. Safety and Quality Plus, Inc.
...elevation-related hazard ( see Linkowski v. City of New York, 33 A.D.3d 971, 973-974, 824 N.Y.S.2d 109; Plotnick v. Wok's Kitchen Inc., 21 A.D.3d 358, 358-359, 800 N.Y.S.2d 37; see also Gelo v. City of New York, 34 A.D.3d 636, 637, 823 N.Y.S.2d 699; Caruana v. Lexington Vil. Condominiums at......
-
Navarro v. City of N.Y.
...provided by those statutes ( see Ferenczi v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 34 A.D.3d 722, 826 N.Y.S.2d 329; Plotnick v. Wok's Kitchen, Inc., 21 A.D.3d 358, 800 N.Y.S.2d 37; Bruder v. 979 Corp., 307 A.D.2d 980, 763 N.Y.S.2d 667; see generally Prats v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 100 N.Y.2d 878, ......