Corsaro v. Mt. Calvary Cemetery

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Corsaro v. Mt. Calvary Cemetery

227 A.D.2d 957, 643 N.Y.S.2d 853, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6886

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 31, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 227 A.D.2d 957 (Corsaro v. Mt. Calvary Cemetery) 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

Corsaro v. Mt. Calvary Cemetery, 227 A.D.2d 957, 643 N.Y.S.2d 853, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6886 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action. That cause of action is based upon a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-2.2 (a), which sets forth methods by which forms, shores and reshores used in concrete work must be made structurally safe, i.e., by requiring them to "be properly braced or tied together so as to maintain position and shape” (12 NYCRR 23-2.2 [a]). That regulation sets forth a [958]*958specific standard of conduct as opposed to a general common-law standard of care (see, Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 NY2d 494, 504-505; White v Farash Corp., 224 AD2d 978; Durfee v Eastman Kodak Co., 212 AD2d 971, lv dismissed 85 NY2d 968; Adams v Glass Fab, 212 AD2d 972; Zacher v Niagara Frontier Servs., 210 AD2d 897).

We therefore modify the order by denying that part of defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action and by reinstating that cause of action and otherwise affirm (see, Long v ForestFehlhaber, 55 NY2d 154, 160, rearg denied 56 NY2d 805). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Michalek, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Green, J. P., Pine, Lawton, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

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

Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action. That cause of action is based upon a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-2.2 (a), which sets forth methods by which forms, shores and reshores used in concrete work must be made structurally safe, i.e., by requiring them to "be properly braced or tied together so as to maintain position and shape” (12 NYCRR 23-2.2 [a]). That regulation sets forth a [958]*958specific standard of conduct as opposed to a general common-law standard of care (see, Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 NY2d 494, 504-505; White v Farash Corp., 224 AD2d 978; Durfee v Eastman Kodak Co., 212 AD2d 971, lv dismissed 85 NY2d 968; Adams v Glass Fab, 212 AD2d 972; Zacher v Niagara Frontier Servs., 210 AD2d 897).

We therefore modify the order by denying that part of defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action and by reinstating that cause of action and otherwise affirm (see, Long v ForestFehlhaber, 55 NY2d 154, 160, rearg denied 56 NY2d 805). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Michalek, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Green, J. P., Pine, Lawton, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

227 A.D.2d 957, 643 N.Y.S.2d 853, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6886, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/corsaro-v-mt-calvary-cemetery-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack