From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Celestine v. City of New York

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jun 28, 1983
59 N.Y.2d 938 (N.Y. 1983)

Summary

denying defendant Long Island Railroad's motion to dismiss Labor Law § 241 claim arising out of injuries suffered by worker building a subway line on the ground that it was not an owner under the statute since it granted an casement in favor of the City of New York and the New York City Transit Authority

Summary of this case from Dawson v. PJ Venture II LLC

Opinion

Argued May 31, 1983

Decided June 28, 1983

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, ANTHONY T. JORDAN, J.

Thomas M. Taranto and Edward G. Lukoski for appellant.

Cheryl R. Eisberg and Pamela Anagnos Liapakis for Milton I. Celestine and another, respondents.

Steve S. Efron, Richard K. Bernard and John A. Murray for New York City Transit Authority, respondent.

Robert L. Boydstun for Lima, Division of Clark Equipment Company, respondent.


Order affirmed, with costs, and question certified answered in the affirmative for reasons stated in the memorandum at the Appellate Division ( 86 A.D.2d 592).

Chief Judge COOKE and Judges JASEN, JONES, WACHTLER, MEYER and Simons.


Summaries of

Celestine v. City of New York

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jun 28, 1983
59 N.Y.2d 938 (N.Y. 1983)

denying defendant Long Island Railroad's motion to dismiss Labor Law § 241 claim arising out of injuries suffered by worker building a subway line on the ground that it was not an owner under the statute since it granted an casement in favor of the City of New York and the New York City Transit Authority

Summary of this case from Dawson v. PJ Venture II LLC

In Celestine v City of New York, 59 N.Y.2d 938 (1983) the Court of Appeals held that the LIRR who was the grantor of an easement wherein the injury claimed by plaintiff took place during subway construction, would be deemed the "owner".

Summary of this case from Peterkin v. Westchester Parks Found.

In Celestine and its progeny, the Court of Appeals established a "bright-line rule" imposing absolute liability under section 240 on "all owners," holding that "[l]iability rests upon the fact of ownership and whether [the owner] had contracted for the work or benefitted from it are legally irrelevant."

Summary of this case from Abbatiello v. Lancaster

In Celestine and its progeny, the Court of Appeals established a "bright line rule" that sought to impose absolute liability under section 240 (1) on all "owners".

Summary of this case from Holman v. City of New York

In Celestine and its progeny, the Court of Appeals established a "bright-line rule" that sought to impose absolute liability under section 240 (1) on all "owners".

Summary of this case from Holman v. City of NY
Case details for

Celestine v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:MILTON I. CELESTINE et al., Respondents, v. CITY OF NEW YORK et al.…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Jun 28, 1983

Citations

59 N.Y.2d 938 (N.Y. 1983)
466 N.Y.S.2d 319
453 N.E.2d 548

Citing Cases

MASTAKOURIS v. NVA, LLC

Following the Whelen line of precedent, the First Department has generally held that a cable technician…

Amigon v. Maxwin USA, Inc.

Ryba v. Almeida, 27 A.D.3d 718, 719 (2nd Dept. 2006); see, Billman v. CLF Management, 19 A.D.3d 346 (2nd…