Legal Opinion

Huthmacher v. Dunlop Tire Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided June 8, 2001PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Plaintiffs commenced this action seeking damages after decedent was killed when he fell through an opening in an elevated metal floor where two pieces of the floor had just been removed. Supreme Court properly granted plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). We reject defendants’ contention that an issue of fact exists concerning the applicability of the recalcitrant worker defense. Defendants submitted no proof that decedent was furnished with a safety device that was…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Gordon v. Eastern Railway Supply, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1993
  2. Weininger v. Hagedorn & Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1998
  3. Salotti v. Wellco, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2000
  4. Adderly v. ADF Construction Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2000
  5. McGuire v. StateAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2000

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Huthmacher v. Dunlop Tire Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2003
  2. Justyk v. Treibacher Schleifmittel Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2004
  3. Huthmacher v. Dunlop Tire Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2006

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API