Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp

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

Ross v. Curtis-Palmer

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.

Holding that "an accident alone does not establish a Labor Law § 240 violation"

Runner v. New York Stock Exchange

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.

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"

Gordon v. Eastern Ry. Supply

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

Zimmer v. Performing Arts

Holding that owners/contractors are liable under Labor Law section 240 where they failed to provide any safety devices for workers at a building site, and the absence of such devices is the proximate cause of injury to a worker"

Klein v. City of New York

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).

Bland v. Manocherian

In Bland, there were affirmed findings of fact, supported by the evidence, from which the jury could find that defendants had failed to satisfy their section 240(1) responsibilities.

Gallagher v. the New York Post

In Gallagher v New York Post (14 NY3d 83), the Court of Appeals articulated the sole proximate cause defense as follows: "[l]iability under Section 240(1) does not attach when [1] the safety devices that plaintiff alleges were absent were readily available at the work site, albeit not in the immediate vicinity of the accident, and [2] plaintiff knew he was expected to use them [3] but for no good reason chose not to do so, [4] causing an accident.

Section 23-1.4 - Definitions

Defining demolition work to include the "total or partial dismantling . . . of a building or other structure including the removing or dismantling of machinery or other equipment"

Section 23-1.2 - Finding of fact

Finding of fact related to the movement of heavy material

Section 23-5.22 - Stilts