From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Weininger v. Hagedorn Company

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Apr 30, 1998
91 N.Y.2d 958 (N.Y. 1998)

Summary

finding that plaintiff stated claim under § 241 where he was engaged in "altering" under § 240

Summary of this case from Lawler v. Globalfoundries U.S., Inc.

Opinion

April 30, 1998

David B. Hamm, for appellant.

Carol R. Finocchio, for Weininger respondents.

Carolyn B. Stevens, for respondent Alpha Tele-Connect, Inc.


MEMORANDUM:

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, judgment for plaintiffs vacated, defendant third-party plaintiff Hagedorn's third-party complaint reinstated and case remitted to Supreme Court for a new trial.

Plaintiff, an employee of third-party defendant Alpha Tele-Connect, Inc., was injured when he fell from a ladder while working at premises leased by defendant Hagedorn Company. At the time of his accident, plaintiff was running computer and telephone cable through the ceiling from an existing computer room in Hagedorn's office to newly leased space that would be used as a telecommunications center. This involved standing on a ladder to access a series of holes punched in the ceiling and pulling the wiring through "canals" that had been made in chicken wire in the ceiling.

We agree with both Supreme Court and the Appellate Division that plaintiff was engaged in "altering" a building or structure within the meaning of Labor Law § 240(1). Here, at the time of his injury, plaintiff's work involved "making asignificant physical change to the configuration or composition of the building or structure," not a simple, routine activity (Joblon v Solow, 91 N.Y.2d 457, 465 [decided today] [emphasis in original]). Supreme Court erred, however, in directing a verdict in favor of plaintiff, at the close of his own case, on the issue of proximate cause. In the circumstances presented, a reasonable jury could have concluded that plaintiff's actions were the sole proximate cause of his injuries, and consequently that liability under Labor Law § 240(1) did not attach (see, Zimmer v Chemung County Performing Arts, Inc., 65 N.Y.2d 513, 524).

Supreme Court, moreover, erred in directing a verdict for third-party defendant Alpha on Hagedorn's claim for common law indemnification. On this record, there are questions of fact as to whether Alpha properly supervised and controlled the work of the injured plaintiff (see, Felker v Corning, Inc., 90 N.Y.2d 219, 226). Supreme Court's reason for ruling against Hagedorn as a matter of law — that it had disposed of the ladder involved in plaintiff's accident — is irrelevant to those questions.

The parties' remaining arguments are either unpreserved or without merit.


Order reversed, with costs, judgment for plaintiffs vacated, defendant third-party plaintiff Hagedorn's third-party complaint reinstated and case remitted to Supreme Court, New York County, for a new trial, in a memorandum. Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Wesley concur. Judges Titone and Ciparick took no part.

Decided April 30, 1998


Summaries of

Weininger v. Hagedorn Company

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Apr 30, 1998
91 N.Y.2d 958 (N.Y. 1998)

finding that plaintiff stated claim under § 241 where he was engaged in "altering" under § 240

Summary of this case from Lawler v. Globalfoundries U.S., Inc.

finding that worker running computer and telephone cables through ceiling to new office space was engaged in altering a structure

Summary of this case from Lawler v. Globalfoundries U.S., Inc.

finding that trial court erred in directing a verdict for plaintiff because a reasonable jury could have found that plaintiff's actions were the proximate cause of his injuries stemming from fall from ladder

Summary of this case from Malone v. Med Inn Centers of America, LLC

In Weininger v. Hagedorn Co. (91 N.Y.2d 958, 960), we held that "Supreme Court erred * * * in directing a verdict in favor of plaintiff, at the close of his own case, on the issue of proximate cause" where "a reasonable jury could have concluded that plaintiff's actions were the sole proximate cause of his injuries, and consequently that liability under [section 240(1)] did not attach."

Summary of this case from Blake v. Neighborhood Hous. Serv. of N.Y.C.

In Weininger (supra), the plaintiff fell from a ladder which he needed in order to pull wiring through a series of holes in a ceiling.

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

In Weininger (supra), the plaintiff fell from a ladder which he needed in order to pull wiring through a series of holes in a ceiling.

Summary of this case from Luongo v. City of N.Y.

In Weininger (supra), the plaintiff fell from a ladder which he needed in order to pull wiring through a series of holes in a ceiling.

Summary of this case from McMahon v. 42ND ST. DEV.

In Weininger v. Hagedorn Co. (91 N.Y.2d 958, supra), the plaintiff was injured when he fell from an A-frame stepladder while running computer and telephone cables through the ceiling in defendant's office.

Summary of this case from Guite v. Cooke Bros
Case details for

Weininger v. Hagedorn Company

Case Details

Full title:Jeffrey Weininger et al., Respondents, v. Hagedorn Company, Appellant…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Apr 30, 1998

Citations

91 N.Y.2d 958 (N.Y. 1998)
672 N.Y.S.2d 840
695 N.E.2d 709

Citing Cases

Prats v. Port Authority of N.Y. and New Jersey

Under the statute as interpreted by New York courts, "`altering' . . . requires making a significant physical…

Rodriguez v. Lupino

Summary judgment for a plaintiff is warranted unless a reasonable jury could conclude "that plaintiff's…