§Why CasetextPricing

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

Brief

7 Cited authorities

  1. Gallagher v. the New York Post

    2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 1014 (N.Y. 2010)   Cited 306 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Gallagher v New York Post (14 NY3d 83), the Court of Appeals articulated the sole proximate cause defense as follows: "[l]iability under Section 240(1) does not attach when [1] the safety devices that plaintiff alleges were absent were readily available at the work site, albeit not in the immediate vicinity of the accident, and [2] plaintiff knew he was expected to use them [3] but for no good reason chose not to do so, [4] causing an accident.

  2. Jimmy Auriemma v. Biltmore Theatre

    82 A.D.3d 1 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)   Cited 220 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that plaintiff established a prima facie case that Labor Law § 240 would apply and that whether a plank was "a functional substitute for a staircase or passageway, as opposed to a safety device, is irrelevant since the defendants had a statutory duty to provide a safety device adequate to protect the plaintiff from an elevation-related hazard ..."

  3. Sanatass v. Consolidated Investing Co.

    2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 3515 (N.Y. 2008)   Cited 169 times
    Holding that a worker was covered by section 240 where he was injured while installing large air conditioning ducts by affixing metal rods into a ceiling

  4. Stolt v. General Foods Corporation

    81 N.Y.2d 918 (N.Y. 1993)   Cited 220 times
    In Stolt, the Court of Appeals noted that "an instruction by the employer or owner to avoid using unsafe equipment or engaging in unsafe practices is not itself a safety device.'"

  5. Salazar v. Novalex Contracting Corp.

    2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 8446 (N.Y. 2011)   Cited 130 times
    In Salazar, the plaintiff fell after his foot got stuck inside a hole at the bottom of a trench as he was raking freshly poured concrete (id. at 138).

  6. Cherry v. Time Warner, Inc.

    66 A.D.3d 233 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)   Cited 103 times
    In Cherry, the Court denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment on grounds of sole proximate cause, when (as here) the plaintiff ascended a baker scaffold without complete guardrails.

  7. Santos v. Consol. Edison of N.Y., Inc.

    104 A.D.3d 606 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)   Cited 20 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that a manhole met the definition of a structure as per the statute