Callea v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Callea v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.

254 A.D.2d 696, 677 N.Y.S.2d 862, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10355

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 2, 1998·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Order and judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Plaintiff Ronald Callea was removing tree limbs that interfered with a high voltage power line when he fell from the tree and sustained serious injuries. The work being performed by him was not “ ‘necessary and incidental to or an integral part’ of a protected activity involving a building or structure under Labor Law § 240 (1)” (McGregor v Bravo, 251 AD2d 1002, 1003). (Appeal from Order and Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Whelan, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Denman, P. J., Pine, Wisner, Balio and Fallon, JJ.

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

Order and judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Plaintiff Ronald Callea was removing tree limbs that interfered with a high voltage power line when he fell from the tree and sustained serious injuries. The work being performed by him was not “ ‘necessary and incidental to or an integral part’ of a protected activity involving a building or structure under Labor Law § 240 (1)” (McGregor v Bravo, 251 AD2d 1002, 1003). (Appeal from Order and Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Whelan, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Denman, P. J., Pine, Wisner, Balio and Fallon, JJ.

Callea v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 254 A.D.2d 696, 677 N.Y.S.2d 862, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10355 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

254 A.D.2d 696 (Callea v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related