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.
Rafael LORA, et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. LEXINGTON BUSINESS COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Anthony Marino Construction Company, Defendant Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant; Morse Diesel, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant third-party plaintiff Anthony Marino Construction Company appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (I. Aronin, J.), dated December 12, 1996, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.
ORDERED that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provisions thereof which denied those branches of the defendant third-party plaintiff's motion which were to dismiss the causes of action based on alleged violations of Labor Law § 240(1) and § 241(6) insofar as asserted against it, and substituting therefor provisions granting those branches of the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The plaintiff Rafael Lora, while operating a jackhammer in the subbasement of a building, was injured when the jackhammer moved backward and struck him in the face. His injuries did not result from an elevation-related hazard, nor has he alleged how violations of specific standards of conduct promulgated by the Commissioner of Labor contributed to his injuries (see, Amato v. State of New York, 241 A.D.2d 400, 660 N.Y.S.2d 576). Accordingly, the causes of action premised upon Labor Law § 240(1) and § 241(6) are dismissed insofar as asserted against the defendant third-party plaintiff.
However, there is a question of fact as to whether the defendant third-party plaintiff, as general contractor, is liable to the injured plaintiff pursuant to Labor Law § 200 and common-law principles (see, Ross v. Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 N.Y.2d 494, 505-507, 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: December 22, 1997
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)