Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Pereira v. A. D. Herman Construction Co.

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

Decided February 19, 1980Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Fein, J. (concurring in part, dissenting in part).

The dissenters would reverse summary judgment because there were no witnesses to plaintiffs fall from the scaffolding. I respectfully disagree. Summary judgment should not be denied to a plaintiff merely because he is the sole witness to the accident. Moreover, the record here is not so limited. In his affidavit in support of his motion for summary judgment plaintiff swore: "I was injured on September 12, 1975, while working as a carpenter in the employ of Mascedos Concrete Corporation at a building site at Stony Brook University under the…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Koenig v. Patrick Construction Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1948
  2. Di Sabato v. SoffesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1959
  3. Haimes v. New York Telephone Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1978
  4. Stainless, Inc. v. Employers Fire InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1979
  5. Monroe v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1979

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API