§Why CasetextPricing

Marc A. Nicometi, Appellant-Respondent,v.The Vineyards of Fredonia, LLC, et al., Respondents-Appellants, et al., Defendants.--------------------------------Scott Pfohl, et al., Third-Party Plaintiffs, v. Western New York Plumbing-Ellicott Plumbing and Remodeling Co., Inc., Third-Party Respondent-Appellant.

Brief

27 Cited authorities

  1. Ross v. Curtis-Palmer

    81 N.Y.2d 494 (N.Y. 1993)   Cited 3,599 times
    Holding that plaintiff's "§ 241 claim must fail because of the inadequacy of his allegations regarding the regulations defendants purportedly breached"

  2. Blake v. Neighborhood Hous. Serv. of N.Y.C.

    1 N.Y.3d 280 (N.Y. 2003)   Cited 1,770 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "an accident alone does not establish a Labor Law § 240 violation"

  3. Runner v. New York Stock Exchange

    2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 9310 (N.Y. 2009)   Cited 1,012 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Explaining that § 240 “was designed to prevent those types of accidents in which the scaffold, hoist, stay, ladder or other protective device proved inadequate to shield the injured worker from harm directly flowing from the application of the force of gravity to an object or person”

  4. Rocovich v. Consol Edison Co.

    78 N.Y.2d 509 (N.Y. 1991)   Cited 1,704 times
    Holding that "[i]t is an accepted rule that all parts of a statute are intended to be given effect and that a statutory construction which renders one part meaningless should be avoided"

  5. Narducci v. Manhasset Bay Assoc

    96 N.Y.2d 259 (N.Y. 2001)   Cited 1,159 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Affirming summary judgment where falling glass injured plaintiff because material was not being hoisted nor was it part of a load that required securing for purposes of the work being undertaken

  6. Wilinski v. 334 East 92nd Hous. Dev. Fund Corp.

    2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 7477 (N.Y. 2011)   Cited 540 times   10 Legal Analyses
    In Wilinski, the plaintiff was injured when demolition debris fell from a wall near the plaintiff's work site causing two ten-foot high unsecured metal pipes to topple onto him from a height of about four feet.

  7. Klein v. City of New York

    89 N.Y.2d 833 (N.Y. 1996)   Cited 612 times
    In Klein, the plaintiff sustained injuries when he fell from a ladder that slipped out from underneath him because the floor had recently been flooded with a slick and greasy water, and a “film” or “ ‘gunk’ ” residue remained (id. at 834, 652 N.Y.S.2d 723, 675 N.E.2d 458).

  8. Quattrocchi v. F.J. Sciame Const

    2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 6736 (N.Y. 2008)   Cited 201 times
    In Quattrocchi, we articulated for the first time that liability is not limited to cases in which the falling object was in the process of being hoisted or secured (see 11 N.Y.3d at 759, 866 N.Y.S.2d 592, 896 N.E.2d 75). Next, in Runner, the Court had occasion to apply section 240(1) to novel factual circumstances that did not involve a falling worker or falling object (see 13 N.Y.3d at 605, 895 N.Y.S.2d 279, 922 N.E.2d 865).

  9. Weininger v. Hagedorn Company

    91 N.Y.2d 958 (N.Y. 1998)   Cited 265 times
    Finding that worker running computer and telephone cables through ceiling to new office space was engaged in altering a structure

  10. Nieves v. Five Boro Air Conditioning & Refrigeration Corp.

    93 N.Y.2d 914 (N.Y. 1999)   Cited 209 times
    Holding "[t]he core objective of the statute in requiring protective devices for those working at heights is to allow them to complete their work safely and prevent them from falling. Where an injury results from a separate hazard wholly unrelated to the risk which brought about the need for the safety device in the first instance, no section 240 liability exists"