32 Cited authorities

Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp
68 N.Y.2d 320 (N.Y. 1986) Cited 21,326 times 8 Legal Analyses
Finding summary judgment appropriate by relying on a treating doctor's unrebutted deposition testimony
Ross v. Curtis-Palmer
81 N.Y.2d 494 (N.Y. 1993) Cited 3,613 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 1,781 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that "an accident alone does not establish a Labor Law § 240 violation"
Runner v. New York Stock Exchange
2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 9310 (N.Y. 2009) Cited 1,018 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”
Rocovich v. Consol Edison Co.
78 N.Y.2d 509 (N.Y. 1991) Cited 1,710 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"
Cahill v. Triborough
4 N.Y.3d 35 (N.Y. 2004) Cited 713 times 1 Legal Analyses
Finding that the worker's actions constituted negligence and a jury could have found his negligence to be the sole cause of his injuries
Robinson v. East Medical Center
2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 2457 (N.Y. 2006) Cited 459 times 2 Legal Analyses
Affirming summary judgment where eight-foot ladders were available and adequate to prevent plaintiff's injuries because the sole proximate cause of plaintiff's injuries was his misuse of a six-foot ladder
Klein v. City of New York
89 N.Y.2d 833 (N.Y. 1996) Cited 615 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).
Misseritti v. Mark IV Construction Co.
86 N.Y.2d 487 (N.Y. 1995) Cited 412 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that the collapse of a completed fire wall was not the type of accident contemplated by 240
Quattrocchi v. F.J. Sciame Const
2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 6736 (N.Y. 2008) Cited 203 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).
Section 240 - Scaffolding and other devices for use of employees
N.Y. Lab. Law § 240 Cited 9,824 times 9 Legal Analyses
Requiring "proper protection"

32 Cited authorities

Finding summary judgment appropriate by relying on a treating doctor's unrebutted deposition testimony

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"

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”

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"

Finding that the worker's actions constituted negligence and a jury could have found his negligence to be the sole cause of his injuries

Affirming summary judgment where eight-foot ladders were available and adequate to prevent plaintiff's injuries because the sole proximate cause of plaintiff's injuries was his misuse of a six-foot ladder

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).

Holding that the collapse of a completed fire wall was not the type of accident contemplated by 240

Requiring "proper protection"