28 Cited authorities

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"
Rizzuto v. L.A. Wenger Contracting Co., Inc.
91 N.Y.2d 343 (N.Y. 1998) Cited 1,929 times
Holding that the jury could reasonably find “that someone within the chain of the construction project was negligent in not exercising reasonable care ... to ... remediate the hazard”
Comes v. New York State Electric and Gas Corporation
82 N.Y.2d 876 (N.Y. 1993) Cited 1,754 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding no liability under common law or Labor Law § 200 in absence of evidence of supervision or control
Ortega v. Puccia
57 A.D.3d 54 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008) Cited 957 times
In Ortega v Puccia (57 AD3d 54, 61-62) and Chowdhury v Rodriguez (57 AD3d 121, 128), this Court distinguished two broad categories under which liability may be imposed under Labor Law § 200. Where an accident is related to a dangerous or defective premises condition, a property owner can be held liable for either creating the condition or having actual or constructive notice and not remedying the condition within a reasonable time (see Ortega v Puccia, 57 AD3d at 61; Chowdhury v Rodriguez, 57 AD3d at 128).
Cahill v. Triborough
4 N.Y.3d 35 (N.Y. 2004) Cited 710 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
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"
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
Dalanna v. City of New York
308 A.D.2d 400 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003) Cited 227 times
Finding that "the bolt, which was embedded in the ground, was not 'dirt,' 'debris,' 'scattered tools and materials' or a 'sharp projection [],' as required by [12 NYCRR 23-1.7(e)(2)]" (first alteration in original)
Montgomery v. Federal Express Corporation
4 N.Y.3d 805 (N.Y. 2005) Cited 201 times 1 Legal Analyses
Granting defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's section 240 claim, where plaintiff's use of a bucket to ascend a rooftop, and a leap to descend, was not a "normal and logical response," as a ladder was available
Azad v. 270 5th Realty Corp.
46 A.D.3d 728 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007) Cited 125 times
No. 2007-04164. December 18, 2007. In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Knipel, J.), dated March 14, 2007, which granted those branches of the plaintiffs' motion which were for summary judgment on the issue of liability on their causes of action pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6), and denied their cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Marshall Conway Wright Bradley, P.C
Section 1926.501 - Duty to have fall protection
29 C.F.R. § 1926.501 Cited 105 times 25 Legal Analyses
Placing burden on employer to demonstrate infeasibility
Section 1910.23 - Ladders
29 C.F.R. § 1910.23 Cited 78 times
Stipulating that "[a]ll handrails and railings shall be provided with a clearance of not less than 3 inches between the handrail or railing and any other object"

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

28 Cited authorities

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

Holding that the jury could reasonably find “that someone within the chain of the construction project was negligent in not exercising reasonable care ... to ... remediate the hazard”

Holding no liability under common law or Labor Law § 200 in absence of evidence of supervision or control

Finding that the worker's actions constituted negligence and a jury could have found his negligence to be the sole cause of his injuries

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"

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

Finding that "the bolt, which was embedded in the ground, was not 'dirt,' 'debris,' 'scattered tools and materials' or a 'sharp projection [],' as required by [12 NYCRR 23-1.7(e)(2)]" (first alteration in original)

Granting defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's section 240 claim, where plaintiff's use of a bucket to ascend a rooftop, and a leap to descend, was not a "normal and logical response," as a ladder was available

Placing burden on employer to demonstrate infeasibility

Stipulating that "[a]ll handrails and railings shall be provided with a clearance of not less than 3 inches between the handrail or railing and any other object"