§Why CasetextPricing

Thomas J. O'Brien, Jr., Respondent,v.Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, et al., Appellants, Silverstein Properties, Inc., et al., Defendants.

Brief

56 Cited authorities

  1. Vega v. Restani Constr. Corp.

    2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 1148 (N.Y. 2012)   Cited 2,806 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Affirming denial of summary judgment

  2. 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"

  3. Blake v. Neighborhood Hous. Serv. of N.Y.C.

    1 N.Y.3d 280 (N.Y. 2003)   Cited 1,771 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "an accident alone does not establish a Labor Law § 240 violation"

  4. 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”

  5. Rocovich v. Consol Edison Co.

    78 N.Y.2d 509 (N.Y. 1991)   Cited 1,704 times
    Holding that "[i]t is an accepted rule that all parts of a statute are intended to be given effect and that a statutory construction which renders one part meaningless should be avoided"

  6. 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

  7. Sillman v. Twentieth Century-Fox

    3 N.Y.2d 395 (N.Y. 1957)   Cited 5,995 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding that provision prohibited assignments when the provision stated, in part, that "neither party hereto shall assign this agreement . . . without the prior written consent of the other party," and "that [defendant] shall not be required to recognize any assignments; and that if [defendant] shall receive notice of the existence of any assignment, it shall have the right to withhold payments until the assignment is cancelled or withdrawn"

  8. Wilinski v. 334 East 92nd Hous. Dev. Fund Corp.

    2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 7477 (N.Y. 2011)   Cited 540 times   10 Legal Analyses
    In Wilinski, the plaintiff was injured when demolition debris fell from a wall near the plaintiff's work site causing two ten-foot high unsecured metal pipes to topple onto him from a height of about four feet.

  9. Ortiz v. Varsity Holdings, LLC

    2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 9161 (N.Y. 2011)   Cited 492 times
    Denying the plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment on his § 240 claim where there is any issue of fact as to whether there is an enumerated safety device that could have prevented his fall

  10. Robinson v. East Medical Center

    2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 2457 (N.Y. 2006)   Cited 458 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

  11. Section 23-1.7 - Protection from general hazards

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 12 § 23-1.7   Cited 1,721 times   52 Legal Analyses
    Relating to slipping hazards