Cohen v. Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center

New York Court of Appeals

Cohen v. Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center

897 N.E.2d 1059, 11 N.Y.3d 823

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 28, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by28 cases

This text of 897 N.E.2d 1059 (Cohen v. Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cohen v. Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, 897 N.E.2d 1059, 11 N.Y.3d 823 (N.Y. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, plaintiffs’ cross motion for summary judgment on their Labor Law § 240 (1) claim denied, defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim granted, and the certified question answered in the negative.

[825]*825No Labor Law § 240 (1) liability exists where an injury results from a separate hazard wholly unrelated to the risk which brought about the need for the safety device in the first place (see Nieves v Five Boro A.C. & Refrig. Corp., 93 NY2d 914 [1999]; Melber v 6333 Main St., 91 NY2d 759, 763-764 [1998]). Here, the presence of two unconnected pipes protruding from a wall was not “the risk which brought about the need for the [ladder] in the first instance” (Nieves, 93 NY2d at 916 [citations omitted]), but was one of “the usual and ordinary dangers at a construction site” (id.) to which the “extraordinary protections of Labor Law § 240 (1) [do not] extend” (id. at 915).

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur in memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order reversed, etc.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, plaintiffs’ cross motion for summary judgment on their Labor Law § 240 (1) claim denied, defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim granted, and the certified question answered in the negative.

[825]*825No Labor Law § 240 (1) liability exists where an injury results from a separate hazard wholly unrelated to the risk which brought about the need for the safety device in the first place (see Nieves v Five Boro A.C. & Refrig. Corp., 93 NY2d 914 [1999]; Melber v 6333 Main St., 91 NY2d 759, 763-764 [1998]). Here, the presence of two unconnected pipes protruding from a wall was not “the risk which brought about the need for the [ladder] in the first instance” (Nieves, 93 NY2d at 916 [citations omitted]), but was one of “the usual and ordinary dangers at a construction site” (id.) to which the “extraordinary protections of Labor Law § 240 (1) [do not] extend” (id. at 915).

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur in memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order reversed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

897 N.E.2d 1059, 11 N.Y.3d 823, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cohen-v-memorial-sloan-kettering-cancer-center-ny-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack