Ross v. Curtis-Palmer
81 N.Y.2d 494 (N.Y. 1993) Cited 3,613 timesHolding that plaintiff's "§ 241 claim must fail because of the inadequacy of his allegations regarding the regulations defendants purportedly breached"
Rizzuto v. L.A. Wenger Contracting Co., Inc.
91 N.Y.2d 343 (N.Y. 1998) Cited 1,941 timesHolding that the jury could reasonably find “that someone within the chain of the construction project was negligent in not exercising reasonable care ... to ... remediate the hazard”
Comes v. New York State Electric and Gas Corporation
82 N.Y.2d 876 (N.Y. 1993) Cited 1,764 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding no liability under common law or Labor Law § 200 in absence of evidence of supervision or control
Zimmer v. Performing Arts
65 N.Y.2d 513 (N.Y. 1985) Cited 1,054 timesHolding 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"
Linkowski v. City of New York
33 A.D.3d 971 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006) Cited 130 timesHolding that an injury of slipping on wet staircase and falling through plastic netting on the landing was not an injury that resulted from an elevated risk
Brown v. Brause Plaza, LLC
19 A.D.3d 626 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005) Cited 80 times2004-05835. June 27, 2005. In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Brause Plaza, LLC, appeals, as limited by its notice of appeal and brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (O'Donoghue, J.), dated May 13, 2004, as denied those branches of its motion which were for summary judgment (a) dismissing the causes of action to recover damages for violation of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) and for common-law negligence insofar as asserted against it
Conklin v. Triborough
49 A.D.3d 320 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008) Cited 73 timesFinding § 240 liability where ramp that provided sole means of access to work shanty lacked handrails
Maza v. University Avenue Development Corp.
13 A.D.3d 65 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004) Cited 76 timesIn Maza v University Ave. Dev. Corp. (13 AD3d 65, 65-66 [1st Dept 2004]), the First Department held that "the courtyard, which was completely enclosed by surrounding buildings and had to be traversed by plaintiff to get to and from his work area... was a 'working area' under 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (e) (2)."
Fassett v. Wegmans Food Markets
66 A.D.3d 1274 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009) Cited 39 timesNo. 506195. October 29, 2009. Cross appeals from an order of the Supreme Court (Lebous, J.), entered June 30, 2008 in Broome County, which, among other things, granted the motion of defendant Wegmans Food Markets, Inc. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it. Shantz Belkin, Latham (Frederick F. Shantz of counsel), for appellant-respondent. The Stanley Law Offices, Syracuse (Keith Young of counsel), for respondent-appellant. Smith, Sovik, Kendrick Sugnet, P.C., Syracuse (Michelle
Belcastro v. Hewlett-Woodmere Union Free School District Number 14
286 A.D.2d 744 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001) Cited 48 timesArgued April 20, 2001. September 24, 2001. In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., (1) the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCaffrey, J.), dated March 2, 2000, as denied that branch of their motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability on their causes of action predicated upon Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6), granted that branch of the cross motion of the defendant Gemma Construction
Section 241 - Construction, excavation and demolition work
N.Y. Lab. Law § 241 Cited 7,219 times 1 Legal AnalysesRequiring areas being excavated to be constructed, shored, equipped, guarded, arranged, operated and conducted as to provide "reasonable and adequate protection and safety" to the persons employed therein
Section 23-1.7 - Protection from general hazards
N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 12 § 23-1.7 Cited 1,728 times 52 Legal AnalysesRelating to slipping hazards