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.
Daniel J. KASH, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. McCANN REAL EQUITIES DEVELOPMENTS, LLC, et al., Defendants-Appellants,
C. Raimondo & Sons Construction Co. Inc., Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Avon Contractors, Third-Party Defendant-Appellant. [And Another Action].
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Schoenfeld, J.), entered May 8, 2000, which, in an action for personal injuries by a laborer against the owner, general contractor and construction manager of a building under construction, granted plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of defendants' liability under Labor Law § 240(1), denied the owner's and general contractor's motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's causes of action under Labor Law §§ 200 and 241(6) and for common-law negligence, and denied the motion of third-party defendant, plaintiff's employer, for summary judgment dismissing the construction manager's third-party complaint against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff was performing work that involved an elevation-related risk within the contemplation of Labor Law § 240(1) when, in the course of installing fire walls in a building under construction, he fell approximately 14 feet to the ground when a mobile scissors lift on which he was working toppled over after being driven by his coworker over a refrigeration hole that had been left uncovered in the concrete floor. Since the scissors lift did not prevent plaintiff from falling, defendants are liable under section 240(1) (see, Gordon v. Eastern Ry. Supply, 82 N.Y.2d 555, 561, 606 N.Y.S.2d 127, 626 N.E.2d 912), unless the actions of plaintiff or his coworker was the sole proximate cause of the accident (see, Weininger v. Hagedorn & Co., 91 N.Y.2d 958, 672 N.Y.S.2d 840, 695 N.E.2d 709; Angeles v. Goldhirsch, 268 A.D.2d 217, 700 N.Y.S.2d 460). No issues of fact are raised in the latter regard. Similar considerations warranted denial of defendants' motions to dismiss plaintiff's claims under sections 200 and 241(6), it being unclear who was responsible for making sure that the many holes in the floor did not present a hazard. Finally, at this juncture, the record does not permit a finding regarding the applicability of Workers' Compensation Law § 11.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: January 30, 2001
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)