Ross v. Curtis-Palmer
81 N.Y.2d 494 (N.Y. 1993) Cited 3,731 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding 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 1,843 times 2 Legal AnalysesHolding 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 1,748 timesHolding 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 1,211 times 6 Legal AnalysesAffirming 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
Weininger v. Hagedorn Company
91 N.Y.2d 958 (N.Y. 1998) Cited 268 timesFinding that worker running computer and telephone cables through ceiling to new office space was engaged in altering a structure
Nieves v. Five Boro Air Conditioning & Refrigeration Corp.
93 N.Y.2d 914 (N.Y. 1999) Cited 214 timesHolding "[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"
Melber v. 6333 Main Street, Inc.
91 N.Y.2d 759 (N.Y. 1998) Cited 140 timesIn 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 65 timesHolding 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 46 timesFinding 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
Weinberg v. Alpine
48 A.D.3d 915 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008) Cited 38 timesNo. 502257. February 21, 2008. Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Kramer, J.), entered May 31, 2006 in Schenectady County, which granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Michael Braccini, Schenectady, for appellant. Pemberton Briggs, Schenectady (Paul Briggs of counsel), for respondents. Before: Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Peters and Carpinello, JJ. Spain, J. On May 1, 2001 plaintiff was injured when he slipped and fell from the third or fourth rung of a stepladder
Section R3212 - Motion for summary judgment
N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 3212 Cited 35,062 timesProviding for motions for summary judgment
Section 240 - Scaffolding and other devices for use of employees
N.Y. Lab. Law § 240 Cited 10,140 times 9 Legal AnalysesRequiring "proper protection"
Section 2201 - Stay
N.Y. CPLR 2201 Cited 1,159 timesProviding that a stay should be granted "upon such terms as may be just"