Molloy v. Long Island Railroad

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Molloy v. Long Island Railroad

2017 NY Slip Op 3606, 150 A.D.3d 421, 51 N.Y.S.3d 405

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

DecidedMay 4, 2017

Docket3893 154407/13

StatusPublished

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 3606 (Molloy v. Long Island Railroad) 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

Molloy v. Long Island Railroad, 2017 NY Slip Op 3606, 150 A.D.3d 421, 51 N.Y.S.3d 405 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Cynthia S. Kern, J.), entered September 24, 2015, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment as to liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), and granted defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 200 and common-law negligence claims and the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim predicated on violations of Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) §§ 23-1.7 (f) and 23-1.30, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

*422 Plaintiff Richard Molloy was injured when he fell from the cab of a locomotive on which he was a brakeman. As a matter of law, alighting from a construction vehicle does not pose an elevation-related risk calling for any of the protective devices listed in Labor Law § 240 (1) (Bond v York Hunter Constr, 95 NY2d 883, 884-885 [2000]). The Industrial Code provisions cited as predicates for the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim have no application to plaintiff’s accident. Defendants may not be held liable under Labor Law § 200 or in common-law negligence, because plaintiff’s injuries arose out of the means and methods of his work, which defendants demonstrated they did not supervise or control (see Alonzo v Safe Harbors of the Hudson Hous. Dev. Fund Co., Inc., 104 AD3d 446, 449 [1st Dept 2013]).

Concur—Sweeny, J.P., Gische, Kahn and Gesmer, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Cynthia S. Kern, J.), entered September 24, 2015, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment as to liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), and granted defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 200 and common-law negligence claims and the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim predicated on violations of Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) §§ 23-1.7 (f) and 23-1.30, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

*422 Plaintiff Richard Molloy was injured when he fell from the cab of a locomotive on which he was a brakeman. As a matter of law, alighting from a construction vehicle does not pose an elevation-related risk calling for any of the protective devices listed in Labor Law § 240 (1) (Bond v York Hunter Constr, 95 NY2d 883, 884-885 [2000]). The Industrial Code provisions cited as predicates for the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim have no application to plaintiff’s accident. Defendants may not be held liable under Labor Law § 200 or in common-law negligence, because plaintiff’s injuries arose out of the means and methods of his work, which defendants demonstrated they did not supervise or control (see Alonzo v Safe Harbors of the Hudson Hous. Dev. Fund Co., Inc., 104 AD3d 446, 449 [1st Dept 2013]).

Concur—Sweeny, J.P., Gische, Kahn and Gesmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 3606, 150 A.D.3d 421, 51 N.Y.S.3d 405, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/molloy-v-long-island-railroad-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack