§Why CasetextPricing

Rafael Batista, Appellant,v.Manhattanville College, et al., Respondents, The Female Academy of the Sacred Heart, Defendant.

Brief

17 Cited authorities

  1. Vega v. Restani Constr. Corp.

    2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 1148 (N.Y. 2012)   Cited 2,794 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Affirming denial of summary judgment

  2. Gordon v. Eastern Ry. Supply

    82 N.Y.2d 555 (N.Y. 1993)   Cited 890 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

  3. Gallagher v. the New York Post

    2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 1014 (N.Y. 2010)   Cited 306 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.

  4. Sanatass v. Consolidated Investing Co.

    2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 3515 (N.Y. 2008)   Cited 169 times
    Holding that a worker was covered by section 240 where he was injured while installing large air conditioning ducts by affixing metal rods into a ceiling

  5. Stolt v. General Foods Corporation

    81 N.Y.2d 918 (N.Y. 1993)   Cited 220 times
    In Stolt, the Court of Appeals noted that "an instruction by the employer or owner to avoid using unsafe equipment or engaging in unsafe practices is not itself a safety device.'"

  6. Lacagnino v. Gonzalez

    306 A.D.2d 250 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)   Cited 159 times

    2002-07516 Argued May 8, 2003. June 2, 2003. In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Eduard Pukhkiy appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schmidt, J.), dated June 18, 2002, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against him. Hayes Lorenzo (Gilroy Downes Horowitz Goldstein, New York, N.Y. [Thomas Dillon and Michael Horowitz] of counsel), for appellant. Robert A. Flaster, P.C., New

  7. Keena v. Gucci Shops

    300 A.D.2d 82 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)   Cited 103 times
    Finding that owner was entitled to contractual indemnification since defendant agreed in its subcontract with the general contractor to indemnify owner for "all claims ... arising in whole or in part and in any manner" from defendant's "acts, omissions, breach or default" in connection with "any work"

  8. Thoma v. Ronai

    82 N.Y.2d 736 (N.Y. 1993)   Cited 134 times
    In Thoma, the plaintiff was crossing East 79th Street along the west side of First Avenue, with the walk signal in her favor, when she was hit while in the crosswalk by a van that had been driving northbound on First Avenue, which made a left turn onto East 79th Street heading westbound.

  9. Hagins v. State of New York

    81 N.Y.2d 921 (N.Y. 1993)   Cited 90 times
    In Hagins, "[c]laimant was injured when he fell from the top of an unfinished abutment wall that rose some 15 feet above a road construction site."

  10. Tama v. Gargiulo Bros., Inc.

    61 A.D.3d 958 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)   Cited 31 times

    No. 2008-03842. April 28, 2009. In a consolidated action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Our Lady of Refuge Roman Catholic Church appeals, as limited by its brief, from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ruchelsman, J.), dated March 17, 2008, which, inter alia, denied those branches of its motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) and (2) causes of action insofar as asserted against it and on its cross claim

  11. Section 500.11 - Alternative procedure for selected appeals

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 22 § 500.11   Cited 536 times

    (a) On its own motion, the court may review selected appeals by an alternative procedure. Such appeals shall be determined on the intermediate appellate court record or appendix and briefs, the writings in the courts below and additional letter submissions on the merits. The clerk of the court shall notify all parties by letter when an appeal has been selected for review pursuant to this section. Appellant may request such review in its preliminary appeal statement. Respondent may request such review