82 Cited authorities

  1. Blake v. Neighborhood Hous. Serv. of N.Y.C.

    1 N.Y.3d 280 (N.Y. 2003)   Cited 1,415 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "an accident alone does not establish a Labor Law § 240 violation"
  2. Runner v. New York Stock Exchange

    2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 9310 (N.Y. 2009)   Cited 720 times   20 Legal Analyses
    In Runner, the Court found that § 240(1) did apply to a circumstance where the plaintiff was injured while moving an 800-pound reel of wire down 4 steps, which the court found to be a "physically significant elevation differential.
  3. Gordon v. Eastern Ry. Supply

    82 N.Y.2d 555 (N.Y. 1993)   Cited 771 times
    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
  4. Cahill v. Triborough

    4 N.Y.3d 35 (N.Y. 2004)   Cited 514 times
    Finding that the worker's actions constituted negligence and a jury could have found his negligence to be the sole cause of his injuries
  5. Zimmer v. Performing Arts

    65 N.Y.2d 513 (N.Y. 1985)   Cited 911 times
    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"
  6. Wilinski v. 334 East 92nd Hous. Dev. Fund Corp.

    2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 7477 (N.Y. 2011)   Cited 328 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. Bland v. Manocherian

    66 N.Y.2d 452 (N.Y. 1985)   Cited 686 times
    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.
  8. Ortiz v. Varsity Holdings, LLC

    2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 9161 (N.Y. 2011)   Cited 274 times
    In Ortiz, the plaintiff was injured when he was taking debris from a building under demolition and placing it in a dumpster outside.
  9. Gallagher v. the New York Post

    2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 1014 (N.Y. 2010)   Cited 254 times   1 Legal Analyses
    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.
  10. Felker v. Corning Inc.

    90 N.Y.2d 219 (N.Y. 1997)   Cited 352 times
    In Felker, the plaintiff fell as he reached from a step ladder over an elevated alcove wall. It was this unique situation and the "contractor's complete failure to provide any safety device to plaintiff to protect him from this... risk of falling over the alcove wall and through the suspended ceiling to the floor below that leads to liability."
  11. Section 1 - Short title

    N.Y. County Law § 1   Cited 30 times

    This chapter shall be known as the "County Law". N.Y. County Law § 1