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.
Charlene STEWART, etc., Respondent-Appellant, v. STATE of New York, et al., Appellants-Respondents.
In a claim to recover damages for personal injuries and wrongful death, etc., the defendants appeal from so much of an order of the Court of Claims (O'Rourke, J.), dated June 16, 1999, as denied those branches of their motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the claims based on alleged violations of Labor Law § 200 and § 241(6), and the claimant cross-appeals from so much of the same order as granted that branch of the defendants' motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 240 claim and denied her cross motion for summary judgment on the claim.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the defendants' contentions, the fatal injuries suffered by the claimant's decedent fall within the purview of Labor Law § 241(6) (see, Mosher v. State of New York, 80 N.Y.2d 286, 590 N.Y.S.2d 53, 604 N.E.2d 115; cf., Mordkofsky v. V.C.V. Dev. Corp., 76 N.Y.2d 573, 577, 561 N.Y.S.2d 892, 563 N.E.2d 263). However, the court properly denied summary judgment in favor of the claimant inasmuch as there are triable issues of fact regarding the defendants' liability under that provision (see, Zimmer v. Chemung County Performing Arts, 65 N.Y.2d 513, 522, 493 N.Y.S.2d 102, 482 N.E.2d 898). Further, the court correctly concluded that summary judgment was premature with respect to the claimant's Labor Law § 200 cause of action (see, Akins v. Baker, 247 A.D.2d 562, 563, 669 N.Y.S.2d 63).
Dismissal of the Labor Law § 240 claim was proper, since the accident which caused the fatal injuries sustained by the claimant's decedent was unrelated to the application of the force of gravity to a person or an object and was in no way caused by the failure to furnish or use protective equipment (see, Ross v. Curtis Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 N.Y.2d 494, 501, 601 N.Y.S.2d 49, 618 N.E.2d 82).
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Thank you for your feedback!
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: August 28, 2000
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)