22 Cited authorities

Ross v. Curtis-Palmer
81 N.Y.2d 494 (N.Y. 1993) Cited 3,595 times
Holding that plaintiff's "§ 241 claim must fail because of the inadequacy of his allegations regarding the regulations defendants purportedly breached"
Blake v. Neighborhood Hous. Serv. of N.Y.C.
1 N.Y.3d 280 (N.Y. 2003) Cited 1,762 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that "an accident alone does not establish a Labor Law § 240 violation"
Rocovich v. Consol Edison Co.
78 N.Y.2d 509 (N.Y. 1991) Cited 1,699 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"
Narducci v. Manhasset Bay Assoc
96 N.Y.2d 259 (N.Y. 2001) Cited 1,155 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
Gordon v. Eastern Ry. Supply
82 N.Y.2d 555 (N.Y. 1993) Cited 893 times
Holding that defendants were liable under Labor Law § 240 for plaintiffs fall and injury occasioned by an allegedly defective sandblaster where such injuries were the foreseeable result of the failure to provide plaintiff with a safe scaffold or ladder while sandblasted a railway car from a ladder
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
Melber v. 6333 Main Street, Inc.
91 N.Y.2d 759 (N.Y. 1998) Cited 139 times
In Melber, the plaintiff was standing on 42–inch stilts while installing metal studs in the top of a drywall (see id. at 761, 676 N.Y.S.2d 104, 698 N.E.2d 933).
Buckley v. J.A. Jones/GMO
38 A.D.3d 461 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007) Cited 64 times
Holding that defendant would not be subject to statutory liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240 if, as the incident report indicates, plaintiff lost his footing while climbing a properly erected, non-malfunctioning, non-defective ladder
Cohen v. Mem. Sloan-Kettering
11 N.Y.3d 823 (N.Y. 2008) Cited 43 times
Finding that Labor Law Section 240 did not apply where injuries sustained by a worker while installing pipe racks in ceiling when he attempted to climb off a ladder and fell due to protruding pipes from a nearby unfinished wall because injuries were a result of the usual and ordinary dangers at a construction site not elevation-related hazard
Hamill v. Mutual of America
79 A.D.3d 478 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010) Cited 23 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that contractual indemnification was premature when the movant did not submit any evidence of a "wrongful act or gross negligence" by plaintiff's employer's, which was required to trigger contractual indemnification

22 Cited authorities

Holding that plaintiff's "§ 241 claim must fail because of the inadequacy of his allegations regarding the regulations defendants purportedly breached"

Holding that "an accident alone does not establish a Labor Law § 240 violation"

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"

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

Holding that defendants were liable under Labor Law § 240 for plaintiffs fall and injury occasioned by an allegedly defective sandblaster where such injuries were the foreseeable result of the failure to provide plaintiff with a safe scaffold or ladder while sandblasted a railway car from a ladder

Finding that worker running computer and telephone cables through ceiling to new office space was engaged in altering a structure

In Melber, the plaintiff was standing on 42–inch stilts while installing metal studs in the top of a drywall (see id. at 761, 676 N.Y.S.2d 104, 698 N.E.2d 933).

Holding that defendant would not be subject to statutory liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240 if, as the incident report indicates, plaintiff lost his footing while climbing a properly erected, non-malfunctioning, non-defective ladder

Holding that contractual indemnification was premature when the movant did not submit any evidence of a "wrongful act or gross negligence" by plaintiff's employer's, which was required to trigger contractual indemnification