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.
Douglas Mark JAEHN, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. LAHR CONSTRUCTION CORP., doing business as Le Cesse Construction Company, Winchester Construction Corp., Cloverwood Senior Living, Inc., Rochester Friendly Senior Services, Defendants-Appellants, et al., Defendant.
Lahr Construction Corp., doing business as Le Cesse Construction Company, et al., Third-Party Plaintiffs, v. Gregory J. Young and Jon Peterson, doing business as Peterson-Young, and Peterson-Young, Inc., Third-Party Defendants-Appellants. (Appeal No. 2.)
Plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for injuries he sustained when he fell while working on a construction project. Plaintiff and his supervisor had detached a prefabricated interior staircase from the building and were repositioning it. While plaintiff was holding its upper end, the staircase abruptly fell into the stairwell and plaintiff fell on top of it, sustaining injuries. Lahr Construction Corp., doing business as LeCesse Construction Company, Winchester Construction Corp., Cloverwood Senior Living, Inc., and Rochester Friendly Senior Services (defendants) and third-party defendants appeal from an amended order that, inter alia, granted those parts of plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240(1) against those defendants.
Supreme Court properly granted those parts of plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment. A “work site is ‘elevated’ within the meaning of [Labor Law § 240(1) ] where the required work itself must be performed at an elevation, i.e., at the upper elevation differential, such that one of the devices enumerated in the statute will safely allow the worker to perform the task” (Ames v. Norstar Building Corp., 19 A.D.3d 1016, 1017, 796 N.Y.S.2d 784 [internal quotation marks omitted] ). Here, defendants were required to utilize one or more of the safety devices enumerated in the statute “because of a difference between the elevation level of the required work and a lower level” (Rocovich v. Consolidated Edison Co., 78 N.Y.2d 509, 514, 577 N.Y.S.2d 219, 583 N.E.2d 932). Having failed to provide any safety device, defendants are liable for the injuries that resulted from that failure (see Partridge v. Waterloo Cent. School Dist., 12 A.D.3d 1054, 1055, 784 N.Y.S.2d 767).
It is hereby ORDERED that the amended order so appealed from be and the same hereby is affirmed without costs.
MEMORANDUM:
All concur, KEHOE, J., not participating.
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: November 17, 2006
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)