Moller v. City of New York

43 A.D.3d 371, 840 N.Y.S.2d 901
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided August 30, 2007·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis B. York, J.), entered December 13, 2006, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on liability on their claim under Labor Law § 240 (1), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[372] Plaintiff worker was in the process of hoisting a two-ton structural piece from an elevated height to a platform. Before the piece could be placed and stabilized on the platform, the hoisting mechanism failed, causing injury to the worker. Under these circumstances, it is evident there was a violation of section 240 (1) (see e.g. Boyle v 42nd St. Dev. Project, Inc., 38 AD3d 404 [2007]). We further note the absence of evidence that the worker’s conduct was the .sole proximate cause of the accident. Concur—Tom, J.E, Andrias, Nardelli, Williams and Buckley, JJ.

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

Moller v. City of New York, 43 A.D.3d 371, 840 N.Y.S.2d 901 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

43 A.D.3d 371 (Moller v. City of New York) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Ray v. City of New York
62 A.D.3d 591 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)