Augello v. 20166 Tenants Corp.

251 A.D.2d 44, 673 N.Y.S.2d 664, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6447
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 4, 1998
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 251 A.D.2d 44 (Augello v. 20166 Tenants Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Augello v. 20166 Tenants Corp., 251 A.D.2d 44, 673 N.Y.S.2d 664, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6447 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered October 23, 1997, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendants-appellants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6) claims; and, order, same court and Justice, entered on or about April 3, 1997, which, inter alia, granted plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment as to liability on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against the owner, lessees and general contractor, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[45]*45Plaintiff was severely injured while working at a construction site when his hand was hit by a falling pulley assembly. The accident was clearly within the remedial scope of Labor Law § 240 (1) since the falling pulley assembly had not been properly secured (Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 NY2d 494, 500-501). Under these circumstances, plaintiffs motion for summary judgment upon his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim was properly granted. In addition, the regulations cited by plaintiff, requiring, inter alia, that pulley blocks and/or similar devices be securely fastened or used with safety hooks (see, e.g., 12 NYCRR 23-6.2 [c]), were sufficiently concrete in their specifications to support plaintiffs Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action (see, Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 NY2d, supra, at 505). We have reviewed defendants-appellants’ other arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Wallach, Tom, Mazzarelli and Saxe, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Guerra v. Port Authority
35 A.D.3d 810 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Hawkins v. City of New York
275 A.D.2d 634 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Puckett v. County of Erie
262 A.D.2d 964 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
251 A.D.2d 44, 673 N.Y.S.2d 664, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6447, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/augello-v-20166-tenants-corp-nyappdiv-1998.