Legal Opinion · Dissent
Ames v. Norstar Building Corp.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided June 10, 2005Published
1Dissent
Gorski and Lawton, JJ. (dissenting in part).
We respectfully dissent in part. Contrary to the majority, we believe that defendants’ failure to make a prima facie showing of entitle*1018ment to judgment as a matter of law with respect to the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim requires denial of that part of defendants’ motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]). Neither do we concur with the conclusion of the majority that the accident of Leigh Ames (plaintiff) “is not the type of accident covered by [Labor Law §] 240 (1).”…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Winegrad v. New York University Medical CenterNew York Court of Appeals · 1985
- Rocovich v. Consolidated Edison Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1991
- Misseritti v. Mark IV Construction Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1995
- Montgomery v. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATIONNew York Court of Appeals · 2005
- Reisch v. Amadori Construction Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2000
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.