17 Cited authorities

  1. Vega v. Restani Constr. Corp.

    2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 1148 (N.Y. 2012)   Cited 1,814 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Affirming denial of summary judgment
  2. Gordon v. Eastern Ry. Supply

    82 N.Y.2d 555 (N.Y. 1993)   Cited 785 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 267 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 150 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 203 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. Thoma v. Ronai

    82 N.Y.2d 736 (N.Y. 1993)   Cited 153 times
    In Thoma v. Ronai, 82 N.Y.2d 736, 602 N.Y.S.2d 323, 621 N.E.2d 690 [1993], this Court held that the plaintiff there did not meet her burden of demonstrating the absence of any material fact; "a factual question of her reasonable care" existed, and thus plaintiff was properly denied summary judgment (id. at 737, 602 N.Y.S.2d 323, 621 N.E.2d 690).
  7. Keena v. Gucci Shops

    300 A.D.2d 82 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)   Cited 99 times

    2510 December 10, 2002. Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy Friedman, J.), entered on or about May 9, 2002, which, to the extent appealed from, granted plaintiff's cross motion to the extent of awarding plaintiff partial summary judgment upon his Labor Law § 240(1) and 241(6) claims against defendant Gucci Shops, Inc., and granted the cross motion of defendant Gucci Shops, Inc. to the extent of awarding it summary judgment upon its cross claim for contractual indemnification as against defendant

  8. Lacagnino v. Gonzalez

    306 A.D.2d 250 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)   Cited 71 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

  9. Hagins v. State of New York

    81 N.Y.2d 921 (N.Y. 1993)   Cited 87 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. Miraglia v. H L

    36 A.D.3d 456 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)   Cited 32 times
    Awarding $10 million
  11. Section 500.11 - Alternative procedure for selected appeals

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 22 § 500.11   Cited 504 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