95 Cited authorities

Zuckerman v. City of N.Y.
49 N.Y.2d 557 (N.Y. 1980) Cited 24,783 times 9 Legal Analyses
Granting summary judgment as the city's arguments were considered speculation and this was "patently inadequate to establish the existence of a factual issue requiring a trial . . ."
Ross v. Curtis-Palmer
81 N.Y.2d 494 (N.Y. 1993) Cited 3,595 times
Holding that plaintiff's "§ 241 claim must fail because of the inadequacy of his allegations regarding the regulations defendants purportedly breached"
Blake v. Neighborhood Hous. Serv. of N.Y.C.
1 N.Y.3d 280 (N.Y. 2003) Cited 1,762 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that "an accident alone does not establish a Labor Law § 240 violation"
Runner v. New York Stock Exchange
2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 9310 (N.Y. 2009) Cited 1,009 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”
Rocovich v. Consol Edison Co.
78 N.Y.2d 509 (N.Y. 1991) Cited 1,699 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"
Russin v. Picciano Son
54 N.Y.2d 311 (N.Y. 1981) Cited 1,422 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding "[a]n implicit precondition to this duty to provide a safe place to work is that the party charged with that responsibility have the authority to control the activity bringing about the injury to enable it to avoid or correct an unsafe condition"
Gordon v. Eastern Ry. Supply
82 N.Y.2d 555 (N.Y. 1993) Cited 893 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
Zimmer v. Performing Arts
65 N.Y.2d 513 (N.Y. 1985) Cited 1,051 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"
Capelin Assoc. v. Globe Mfg. Corp.
34 N.Y.2d 338 (N.Y. 1974) Cited 1,468 times
Holding that "[o]n a motion for summary judgment the court is not to determine credibility, but whether there exists a factual issue, or if arguably there is a genuine issue of fact"
Robinson v. East Medical Center
2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 2457 (N.Y. 2006) Cited 456 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
Section 23-3.3 - Demolition by hand
N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 12 § 23-3.3 Cited 213 times 2 Legal Analyses
(a) Application. The provisions of this section shall not apply to mechanical means of demolition. (b) Demolition of walls and partitions. (1) The demolition of walls and partitions shall proceed in a systematic manner and all demolition work above each tier of floor beams shall be completed before any demolition work is performed on the supports of such floor beams. (2) Masonry shall not be loosened nor permitted to fall in such masses as to endanger the structural stability of any floor or structural

Raul Barreto, Appellant, et al., Plaintiff,v.Metropolitan Transportation Authority, et al., Respondents. (And other Third-Party Actions.)

95 Cited authorities

Granting summary judgment as the city's arguments were considered speculation and this was "patently inadequate to establish the existence of a factual issue requiring a trial . . ."

Holding that plaintiff's "§ 241 claim must fail because of the inadequacy of his allegations regarding the regulations defendants purportedly breached"

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

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”

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"

Holding "[a]n implicit precondition to this duty to provide a safe place to work is that the party charged with that responsibility have the authority to control the activity bringing about the injury to enable it to avoid or correct an unsafe condition"

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

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"

Holding that "[o]n a motion for summary judgment the court is not to determine credibility, but whether there exists a factual issue, or if arguably there is a genuine issue of fact"

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