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 HATCHER, appellant-respondent, v. OGDEN MARTIN SYSTEMS OF BABYLON, INC., et al., defendants third-party plaintiffs-respondents-appellants; Allied Hydro–Blasters, Inc., third-party defendant.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Emerson, J.), dated February 24, 1998, as denied his motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability on the cause of action to recover damages under Labor Law § 240(1), and the defendants cross-appeal from so much of the same order as denied that branch of their cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action to recover damages under Labor Law § 240(1).
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as cross-appealed from, and that branch of the cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action to recover damages under Labor Law § 240(1) is granted; and it is further,
ORDERED that the defendants are awarded one bill of costs, payable by the plaintiff.
The plaintiff was injured when hot ash fell on him while he was removing ash build-up from the inside of a “hopper” at the defendants' recycling facility. The plaintiff commenced this action against the defendant Town of Babylon, the owner of the recycling plant, and the defendant Ogden Martin Systems of Babylon, Inc., the operator of the plant, seeking damages, inter alia, under Labor Law § 240. The plaintiff then moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240(1) and the defendants cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing, inter alia, the Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action. The Supreme Court denied the motion and cross motion.
We find that Labor Law § 240(1) does not apply to the facts of this case and, accordingly, the defendants' cross motion should have been granted. The plaintiff's injury was not the result of a gravity-related hazard (see, Labor Law § 240[1]; Ross v. Curtis–Palmer Hydro–Elec. Co., 81 N.Y.2d 494, 601 N.Y.S.2d 49, 618 N.E.2d 82; Rocovich v. Consolidated Edison Co., 78 N.Y.2d 509, 577 N.Y.S.2d 219, 583 N.E.2d 932).
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 30, 1999
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)