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.
Mitchell SAMUELS, Appellant, v. JAMAICA HOSPITAL CORPORATION, et al., Respondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Shaw, J.), entered January 19, 2000, which, upon the granting of the defendants' motion pursuant to CPLR 4401 for judgment as a matter of law, made at the close of the evidence, is in favor of the defendants and against him dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff, an elevator mechanic, was allegedly injured when he inhaled fumes from burning metal. He commenced this action against the defendant Jamaica Hospital Corporation, the building owner, and the defendant E.W. Howell, Inc., the general contractor of the job site, alleging, inter alia, that they violated Labor Law § 241(6) by failing to provide him with a breathing apparatus as required by 12 NYCRR 12-2.8. At the close of the evidence, the Supreme Court granted the defendants' motion pursuant to CPLR 4401 for judgment in their favor as a matter of law.
The plaintiff failed to establish that the defendants breached a nondelegable duty pursuant to Labor Law § 241(6). There was no testimony that he was working in a confined space or with toxic metals. Therefore, he was not involved in the class of operations that would have required the defendants to provide him with an air line respirator (see, 12 NYCRR 12-2.8). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' motion (see, Szczerbiak v. Pilat, 90 N.Y.2d 553, 556, 664 N.Y.S.2d 252, 686 N.E.2d 1346).
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.
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: April 09, 2001
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)