Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Thomas AUGELLO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. 20166 TENANTS CORP., et al., Defendants.
NEIC INC., et al., Defendants/Third-Party Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. ACTION INDUSTRIAL MAINTENANT SYSTEMS, INC. Third-Party Defendant. [And Another Third-Party Action].
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered October 23, 1997, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendants-appellants' motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's Labor Law § 240(1) and 241(6) claims; and, order, same court and Justice, entered on or about April 3, 1997, which, inter alia, granted plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment as to liability on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim against the owner, lessees and general contractor, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff was severely injured while working at a construction site when his hand was hit by a falling pulley assembly. The accident was clearly within the remedial scope of Labor Law § 240(1) since the falling pulley assembly had not been properly secured (Ross v. Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Electric Co., 81 N.Y.2d 494, 500-501, 601 N.Y.S.2d 49, 618 N.E.2d 82). Under these circumstances, plaintiff's motion for summary judgment upon his Labor Law § 240(1) claim was properly granted. In addition, the regulations cited by plaintiff, requiring, inter alia, that pulley blocks and/or similar devices be securely fastened or used with safety hooks (see, e.g., 12 NYCRR § 23-6.2 [c] ), were sufficiently concrete in their specifications to support plaintiff's Labor Law § 241(6) cause of action (see, Ross v. Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Electric, Co., 81 N.Y.2d, supra at 505, 601 N.Y.S.2d 49, 618 N.E.2d 82). We have reviewed defendants-appellants' other arguments and find them to be without merit.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: June 04, 1998
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)