§Why CasetextPricing

Glenford Morris, Respondent,v.Pavarini Construction, et al., Appellants.

Brief

11 Cited authorities

  1. Zimmer v. Performing Arts

    65 N.Y.2d 513 (N.Y. 1985)   Cited 1,051 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"

  2. Morris v. Pavarini Constr

    2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 5776 (N.Y. 2007)   Cited 83 times
    In Morris, defendant's engineer suggested that the forms could have been tied together with straps to secure them to each other, but offered no further explanation of what should have been done, and defendants submitted no expert testimony.

  3. Kane v. Coundorous

    293 A.D.2d 309 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)   Cited 59 times

    5092 April 11, 2002. Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alan Saks, J.), entered May 12, 2000, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, dismissed the complaint against defendants Peter Coundorous and P.C.S.B. prior to trial and against defendants 229 Columbus Avenue Associates and Buchbinder Warren following trial upon a jury verdict, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the complaint reinstated to the extent it asserts causes of action for liability under Labor

  4. McCormick v. Genesee

    78 A.D.3d 1581 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)   Cited 40 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In McCormick v. 257 W. Genesee, LLC, 78 A.D.3d 1581, 913 N.Y.S.2d 435 [2010], the plaintiff tripped and fell on a protruding pin workers had stored on a form at the site.

  5. Amato v. State of New York

    241 A.D.2d 400 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)   Cited 55 times

    July 24, 1997 Appeal from the Court of Claims (Christopher Mega, J.). There is no dispute as to the relevant facts here and the questions raised were ripe for determination on summary judgment. We find that the facts clearly show that plaintiff's injury did not fall within the scope of Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6). "[S]ection 240 (1) imposes absolute liability on owners, contractors and their agents for any breach of the statutory duty [to provide adequate safety devices] which has proximately

  6. Millard v. City of Ogdensburg

    274 A.D.2d 953 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)   Cited 25 times

    July 7, 2000. Appeals from Order of Supreme Court, Lewis County, Parker, J. — Summary Judgment. PRESENT: GREEN, J.P., HAYES, HURLBUTT AND KEHOE, JJ. Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs and matter remitted to Supreme Court for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: Plaintiffs commenced this action alleging violations of Labor Law § 241 Lab. (6) and § 200 Lab. and seeking, inter alia, damages for injuries sustained by plaintiff Stephen

  7. Mueller v. PSEG Power New York, Inc.

    83 A.D.3d 1274 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)   Cited 9 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Mueller v. PSEG Power N.Y., Inc., 83 A.D.3d 1274, 922 N.Y.S.2d 588 [2011], the plaintiff's accident occurred after workers had removed the forms from their vertical position and stacked them for disassembly and storage on the ground at the same elevation as the plaintiff.

  8. Morris v. Pavarini Constr.

    98 A.D.3d 841 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)   Cited 3 times   1 Legal Analyses

    2012-09-4 Glenford MORRIS, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. PAVARINI CONSTRUCTION, et al., Defendants–Respondents. Hill & Moin LLP, New York (Cheryl R. Eisberg Moin of counsel), for appellant. London Fischer LLP, New York (David B. Franklin of counsel), for respondents. TOM Hill & Moin LLP, New York (Cheryl R. Eisberg Moin of counsel), for appellant. London Fischer LLP, New York (David B. Franklin of counsel), for respondents. TOM, J.P., ANDRIAS, SAXE, MOSKOWITZ, ACOSTA, JJ. Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County

  9. Morris v. Pavarini Construction

    30 A.D.3d 177 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)   Cited 4 times

    6571. June 8, 2006. Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mary Ann Brigantti-Hughes, J.), entered February 7, 2005, which, insofar as appealed from, denied defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's cause of action under Labor Law § 241 (6), unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, defendants' motion granted, and plaintiff's cause of action under Labor Law § 241 (6) dismissed. London Fischer LLP, New York (Anthony D. Capasso of counsel), for appellants. Sacks and Sacks, LLP, New York (Scott

  10. Section 23-3.3 - Demolition by hand

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 12 § 23-3.3   Cited 213 times   2 Legal Analyses

    (a) Application. The provisions of this section shall not apply to mechanical means of demolition. (b) Demolition of walls and partitions. (1) The demolition of walls and partitions shall proceed in a systematic manner and all demolition work above each tier of floor beams shall be completed before any demolition work is performed on the supports of such floor beams. (2) Masonry shall not be loosened nor permitted to fall in such masses as to endanger the structural stability of any floor or structural

  11. Section 23-2.2 - Concrete work

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 12 § 23-2.2   Cited 61 times   1 Legal Analyses

    (a) General requirements. Forms, shores and reshores shall be structurally safe and shall be properly braced or tied together so as to maintain position and shape. (b) Inspection. Designated persons shall continuously inspect the stability of all forms, shores and reshores including all braces and other supports during the placing of concrete. Any unsafe condition shall be remedied immediately. (c) Beams, floors and roofs. (1) Necessary horizontal and diagonal bracing shall be provided in both longitudinal