14 Cited authorities

  1. Narducci v. Manhasset Bay Assoc

    96 N.Y.2d 259 (N.Y. 2001)   Cited 932 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Affirming summary judgment where falling glass injured plaintiff because material was not being hoisted nor was it part of a load that required securing for purposes of the work being undertaken
  2. Derdiarian v. Felix Contr Co.

    51 N.Y.2d 308 (N.Y. 1980)   Cited 1,742 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"
  3. Robinson v. East Medical Center

    2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 2457 (N.Y. 2006)   Cited 405 times   1 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
  4. Montgomery v. Federal Express Corporation

    4 N.Y.3d 805 (N.Y. 2005)   Cited 187 times
    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
  5. Cherry v. Time Warner, Inc.

    66 A.D.3d 233 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)   Cited 83 times

    No. 101464/06. August 18, 2009. CROSS APPEALS from an order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Edward H. Lehner, J.), entered November 28, 2007. The order denied plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment as to liability on his Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action, denied defendants' cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and granted plaintiffs cross motion for leave to amend the complaint to allege a cause of action under Labor Law § 241 (6). Malapero Prisco

  6. Yun Tung Chow v. Reckitt & Colman, Inc.

    2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 3888 (N.Y. 2011)   Cited 56 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that a prima facie design defect case requires a showing “that the defendant ‘breached its duty to market safe products when it marketed a product designed so that the it was not reasonably safe and that the defective design was a substantial factor in causing plaintiff's injury.’ ” Id. (quoting Voss, 59 N.Y.2d at 106–107, 463 N.Y.S.2d 398, 450 N.E.2d 204)
  7. Macey v. Truman

    70 N.Y.2d 918 (N.Y. 1987)   Cited 80 times
    In Macey v. Truman (70 NY2d 918, 919 [1987]), the Court of Appeals remarked, "A landowner owes a duty to another on his land to keep it in a reasonably safe condition, considering all of the circumstances including the purpose of the person's presence and the likelihood of injury."
  8. Egan v. A.J. Construction Corp.

    94 N.Y.2d 839 (N.Y. 1999)   Cited 42 times
    In Egan, the court held that plaintiff's act of jumping out of an elevator that had stalled six feet above the lobby floor after the elevator's doors had been opened manually was not foreseeable in the normal course of events where plaintiff was not threatened by injury while inside the stalled elevator.
  9. Rivera v. City of New York

    11 N.Y.2d 856 (N.Y. 1962)   Cited 126 times
    In Rivera, the evidence established that a nine-year-old boy sustained injuries when he fell into a bathtub filled with hot water. It was undisputed that the boy had fallen when he stood on the edge of the bathtub to reach a light cord. A closely divided Court of Appeals dismissed the complaint, concluding (p 857) that the hot water created the injuries for which damages were sought "but it did not cause the intervening act which was not foreseeable.
  10. Tom v. Plaza

    9 N.Y.3d 948 (N.Y. 2007)   Cited 7 times

    No. 178 SSM 26. Decided October 23, 2007. APPEAL, by permission of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, from an order of that Court, entered March 29, 2007. The Appellate Division, with two Justices dissenting, (1) reversed, on the law, an order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Louis B. York, J.), which had granted plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment as to liability on a Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action, (2) denied the motion, and (3)