34 Cited authorities

  1. Ross v. Curtis-Palmer

    81 N.Y.2d 494 (N.Y. 1993)   Cited 3,005 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 1,453 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 1,465 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 912 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. Klein v. City of New York

    89 N.Y.2d 833 (N.Y. 1996)   Cited 563 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).
  6. Wilinski v. 334 East 92nd Hous. Dev. Fund Corp.

    2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 7477 (N.Y. 2011)   Cited 342 times   9 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. 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
  8. Nieves v. Five Boro Air Conditioning & Refrigeration Corp.

    93 N.Y.2d 914 (N.Y. 1999)   Cited 168 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"
  9. Melber v. 6333 Main Street, Inc.

    91 N.Y.2d 759 (N.Y. 1998)   Cited 116 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).
  10. Buckley v. J.A. Jones/GMO

    38 A.D.3d 461 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)   Cited 56 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.