34 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
Wilinski v. 334 East 92nd Hous. Dev. Fund Corp.
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 7477 (N.Y. 2011) Cited 536 times 10 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.
Klein v. City of New York
89 N.Y.2d 833 (N.Y. 1996) Cited 611 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).
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
Nieves v. Five Boro Air Conditioning & Refrigeration Corp.
93 N.Y.2d 914 (N.Y. 1999) Cited 209 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"
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

34 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

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.

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).

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