§Why CasetextPricing

Justin Nazario, Respondent,v.222 Broadway, LLC, et al., Respondents.---------------------------------222 Broadway, LLC, et al., Third-Party Respondents, v. Knight Electrical Services Corp., Third-Party Appellant. (And Other Third-Party Actions.)

Brief

58 Cited authorities

  1. Ross v. Curtis-Palmer

    81 N.Y.2d 494 (N.Y. 1993)   Cited 3,599 times
    Holding that plaintiff's "§ 241 claim must fail because of the inadequacy of his allegations regarding the regulations defendants purportedly breached"

  2. 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"

  3. Runner v. New York Stock Exchange

    2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 9310 (N.Y. 2009)   Cited 1,012 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Explaining that § 240 “was designed to prevent those types of accidents in which the scaffold, hoist, stay, ladder or other protective device proved inadequate to shield the injured worker from harm directly flowing from the application of the force of gravity to an object or person”

  4. Ayotte v. Gervasio

    81 N.Y.2d 1062 (N.Y. 1993)   Cited 1,657 times

    Decided June 15, 1993 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department, Jan H. Plumadore, J. Saul Aronson, Albany, and Francis E. Lehner for appellants. DeLorenzo, Gordon, Pasquariello, Weiskopf Harding, P.C., Schenectady (Marshall P. Richer of counsel), for respondents. MEMORANDUM. The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, and the certified question answered in the negative. "[T]he proponent of a summary judgment motion must make

  5. Narducci v. Manhasset Bay Assoc

    96 N.Y.2d 259 (N.Y. 2001)   Cited 1,159 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

  6. Cahill v. Triborough

    4 N.Y.3d 35 (N.Y. 2004)   Cited 713 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that the worker's actions constituted negligence and a jury could have found his negligence to be the sole cause of his injuries

  7. Gordon v. Eastern Ry. Supply

    82 N.Y.2d 555 (N.Y. 1993)   Cited 894 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

  8. Zimmer v. Performing Arts

    65 N.Y.2d 513 (N.Y. 1985)   Cited 1,053 times
    Holding 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"

  9. Klein v. City of New York

    89 N.Y.2d 833 (N.Y. 1996)   Cited 612 times
    In Klein, the plaintiff sustained injuries when he fell from a ladder that slipped out from underneath him because the floor had recently been flooded with a slick and greasy water, and a “film” or “ ‘gunk’ ” residue remained (id. at 834, 652 N.Y.S.2d 723, 675 N.E.2d 458).

  10. Naughton v. City of New York

    94 A.D.3d 1 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)   Cited 297 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Naughton, the tag lines used to guide a large bundle being hoisted became "slack," causing the load to swing toward plaintiff.

  11. Section 5-322.1 - Agreements exempting owners and contractors from liability for negligence void and unenforceable; certain cases

    N.Y. Gen. Oblig. Law § 5-322.1   Cited 977 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Declaring contract provisions requiring exhaustion of another legal remedy before enforcing bond unenforceable as against public policy

  12. 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