7 Cited authorities

  1. Gallagher v. the New York Post

    2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 1014 (N.Y. 2010)   Cited 253 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 159 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding duty to defend where insurer had “actual notice of the possibility of coverage from [insured's] answers to the complaints ... and its deposition testimony”
  3. Sanatass v. Consolidated Investing Co.

    2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 3515 (N.Y. 2008)   Cited 146 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 198 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 88 times
    In Salazar, the Court of Appeals held that § 240(1) was inapplicable to an accident which occurred when the worker, while walking backwards across the floor and pulling concrete with a rake held in front of him, stepped into a trench.
  6. Cherry v. Time Warner, Inc.

    66 A.D.3d 233 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)   Cited 76 times

    No. 101464/06. August 18, 2009. CROSS APPEALS from an order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Edward H. Lehner, J.), entered November 28, 2007. The order denied plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment as to liability on his Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action, denied defendants' cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and granted plaintiffs cross motion for leave to amend the complaint to allege a cause of action under Labor Law § 241 (6). Malapero Prisco

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

    104 A.D.3d 606 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)   Cited 18 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that a manhole met the definition of a structure as per the statute