22 Cited authorities

  1. Ross v. Curtis-Palmer

    81 N.Y.2d 494 (N.Y. 1993)   Cited 3,039 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 1,467 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "an accident alone does not establish a Labor Law § 240 violation"
  3. Rocovich v. Consol Edison Co.

    78 N.Y.2d 509 (N.Y. 1991)   Cited 1,482 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"
  4. Narducci v. Manhasset Bay Assoc

    96 N.Y.2d 259 (N.Y. 2001)   Cited 932 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
  5. Gordon v. Eastern Ry. Supply

    82 N.Y.2d 555 (N.Y. 1993)   Cited 785 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
  6. Weininger v. Hagedorn Company

    91 N.Y.2d 958 (N.Y. 1998)   Cited 250 times
    Finding that plaintiff stated claim under § 241 where he was engaged in "altering" under § 240
  7. Melber v. 6333 Main Street, Inc.

    91 N.Y.2d 759 (N.Y. 1998)   Cited 117 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).
  8. Buckley v. J.A. Jones/GMO

    38 A.D.3d 461 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)   Cited 58 times
    In Buckley, a careful reading evinces that the court found that plaintiff raised an issue of fact sufficient to preclude summary judgment when he submitted an accident report containing hearsay.
  9. Cohen v. Mem. Sloan-Kettering

    11 N.Y.3d 823 (N.Y. 2008)   Cited 38 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
  10. Duda v. John W. Rouse Construction Corp.

    298 N.E.2d 667 (N.Y. 1973)   Cited 80 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Duda v Rouse Constr. Corp. (32 N.Y.2d 405), in which an employee of a subcontractor sought to impose absolute liability upon a general contractor under Labor Law § 240 (1) for injuries suffered when he fell from a scaffold, the Court of Appeals explained the term "directing" for purposes of the statute, as follows: "`Directing' * * * means just that; for one person to be `directed' by another, there must be supervision of the manner and method of the work to be performed.