24 Cited authorities

Blake v. Neighborhood Hous. Serv. of N.Y.C.
1 N.Y.3d 280 (N.Y. 2003) Cited 1,770 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that "an accident alone does not establish a Labor Law § 240 violation"
Derdiarian v. Felix Contr Co.
51 N.Y.2d 308 (N.Y. 1980) Cited 1,880 times
Holding that the negligence of a driver did not negate a contractor's failure to safeguard an excavation site, and that "[b]ecause questions concerning what is foreseeable and what is normal may be the subject of varying inferences, as is the question of negligence itself, these issues generally are for the fact finder to resolve"
Robinson v. East Medical Center
2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 2457 (N.Y. 2006) Cited 457 times 2 Legal Analyses
Affirming summary judgment where eight-foot ladders were available and adequate to prevent plaintiff's injuries because the sole proximate cause of plaintiff's injuries was his misuse of a six-foot ladder
Tagle v. Jakob
97 N.Y.2d 165 (N.Y. 2001) Cited 440 times 1 Legal Analyses
In Tagle, the plaintiff was injured when he touched an uninsulated electric wire while climbing a tree on the defendant's property.
Nallan v. Helmsley-Spear Inc.
50 N.Y.2d 507 (N.Y. 1980) Cited 850 times
Holding that a commercial landlord has a duty to take reasonable precautionary measures to minimize the risk of foreseeable criminal activity and to make the premises safe for the visiting public
Di Ponzio v. Riordan
89 N.Y.2d 578 (N.Y. 1997) Cited 299 times
Holding defendant not liable because duty to shut off car's engine at a gas station was to prevent fires not physical injuries resulting from rolling cars
Montgomery v. Federal Express Corporation
4 N.Y.3d 805 (N.Y. 2005) Cited 201 times 1 Legal Analyses
Granting defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's section 240 claim, where plaintiff's use of a bucket to ascend a rooftop, and a leap to descend, was not a "normal and logical response," as a ladder was available
Cherry v. Time Warner, Inc.
66 A.D.3d 233 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009) Cited 104 times
In Cherry, the Court denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment on grounds of sole proximate cause, when (as here) the plaintiff ascended a baker scaffold without complete guardrails.
Plass v. Solotoff
5 A.D.3d 365 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004) Cited 73 times
2003-02158. Decided March 1, 2004. In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants Cheryl Solotoff and Deli Designs, Inc., separately appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (DeMaro, J.), dated January 31, 2003, which, in effect, denied their separate motions pursuant to CPLR 4401, made at the close of the plaintiffs' evidence, for judgment as a matter of law. Michael F.X. Manning (Carol R. Finocchio, New York, N.Y. [Lawrence B. Goodman and Mary Ellen
Ventricelli v. Kinney System Rent a Car, Inc.
45 N.Y.2d 950 (N.Y. 1978) Cited 145 times
Holding rental car company liable for its negligence in placing injured party at the site of later accident would have "stretch[ed] the concept of foreseeability beyond acceptable limits"

George Newman, et al., Appellants,v.RCPI Landmark Properties, LLC, et al., Respondents.

24 Cited authorities

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

Affirming summary judgment where eight-foot ladders were available and adequate to prevent plaintiff's injuries because the sole proximate cause of plaintiff's injuries was his misuse of a six-foot ladder

In Tagle, the plaintiff was injured when he touched an uninsulated electric wire while climbing a tree on the defendant's property.

Holding that a commercial landlord has a duty to take reasonable precautionary measures to minimize the risk of foreseeable criminal activity and to make the premises safe for the visiting public

Holding defendant not liable because duty to shut off car's engine at a gas station was to prevent fires not physical injuries resulting from rolling cars

Granting defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's section 240 claim, where plaintiff's use of a bucket to ascend a rooftop, and a leap to descend, was not a "normal and logical response," as a ladder was available

In Cherry, the Court denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment on grounds of sole proximate cause, when (as here) the plaintiff ascended a baker scaffold without complete guardrails.

Holding rental car company liable for its negligence in placing injured party at the site of later accident would have "stretch[ed] the concept of foreseeability beyond acceptable limits"