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.
Jerome F. SCHLEY and Sandra Schley, Respondents, v. DANCO CONSTRUCTION, INC., Defendant, Ben-Mil Associates, Inc., Benderson Development Co., Inc., Appellants, Armond Cerrone, Inc., Respondent.
Supreme Court properly denied that part of the cross motion of Ben-Mil Associates, Inc., and Benderson Development Co., Inc. (defendants), seeking summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 241(6) claim premised upon an alleged violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(e)(2). That regulation provides in pertinent part that “areas where persons work or pass shall be kept free from accumulations of dirt and debris * * * insofar as may be consistent with the work being performed.” The court properly determined that issues of fact remain whether defendants violated that specific safety regulation (see, Adams v. Glass Fab, 212 A.D.2d 972, 624 N.Y.S.2d 705) and whether such violation was a proximate cause of the accident. Additionally, we conclude that there is an issue of fact concerning the applicability of the regulation. The accident occurred in an area bisected by newly poured curb and covered with loose stone and debris. It cannot be determined as a matter of law that the area at issue is separate from the place at which road construction was being performed (cf., Stairs v. State St. Assocs., 206 A.D.2d 817, 615 N.Y.S.2d 478). Defendants contend that plaintiff Jerome F. Schley tripped over curbing or stone that was an integral part of the road being constructed (see, Lenard v. 1251 Ams. Assocs., 241 A.D.2d 391, 660 N.Y.S.2d 416; Adams v. Glass Fab, supra, at 973, 624 N.Y.S.2d 705). It is equally feasible, however, that crushed stone and debris left from the construction were substantial factors in his fall.
Order unanimously affirmed with costs.
MEMORANDUM:
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: October 02, 1998
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth 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)