Morris v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Morris v. City of New York

87 A.D.3d 918, 929 N.Y.2d 585

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

DecidedSeptember 22, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 87 A.D.3d 918 (Morris v. City of New York) 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

Morris v. City of New York, 87 A.D.3d 918, 929 N.Y.2d 585 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

[919]*919Plaintiff Omrie Morris was injured when a temporary wooden step on which he was standing shifted as he and another employee were moving an air tank up a concrete stairway from the basement of the work site to the first floor. There is an issue of fact as to whether the temporary step had been placed at the bottom of the concrete stairway to aid employees in ascending the stairway to different levels of the site, and thus constituted a device to protect employees against elevation-related risks within the meaning of Labor Law § 240 (1) {see Megna v Tishman Constr. Corp. of Manhattan, 306 AD2d 163 [2003]; see also McGarry v CVP 1 LLC, 55 AD3d 441 [2008]).

In view of the evidence that the temporary step was unstable and that snow and debris accumulated in the working areas and in the hallways and other passageways that plaintiff and the other employee had to traverse to reach the air tanks, defendant failed to demonstrate that Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-1.7 (d), (e) (1) and (2) and (f), which address slipping, tripping and other hazards, and vertical passages, and § 23-2.7 (b), which addresses temporary stairway construction, are inapplicable to the facts of this case and thus do not support the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action.

The record demonstrates only that defendant had general supervisory authority at the work site, which is insufficient to trigger liability under Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence principles (Burgalassi v Mandell Mech. Corp., 38 AD3d 363 [2007]). Concur — Saxe, J.P., Friedman, Acosta, DeGrasse and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

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

[919]*919Plaintiff Omrie Morris was injured when a temporary wooden step on which he was standing shifted as he and another employee were moving an air tank up a concrete stairway from the basement of the work site to the first floor. There is an issue of fact as to whether the temporary step had been placed at the bottom of the concrete stairway to aid employees in ascending the stairway to different levels of the site, and thus constituted a device to protect employees against elevation-related risks within the meaning of Labor Law § 240 (1) {see Megna v Tishman Constr. Corp. of Manhattan, 306 AD2d 163 [2003]; see also McGarry v CVP 1 LLC, 55 AD3d 441 [2008]).

In view of the evidence that the temporary step was unstable and that snow and debris accumulated in the working areas and in the hallways and other passageways that plaintiff and the other employee had to traverse to reach the air tanks, defendant failed to demonstrate that Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-1.7 (d), (e) (1) and (2) and (f), which address slipping, tripping and other hazards, and vertical passages, and § 23-2.7 (b), which addresses temporary stairway construction, are inapplicable to the facts of this case and thus do not support the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action.

The record demonstrates only that defendant had general supervisory authority at the work site, which is insufficient to trigger liability under Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence principles (Burgalassi v Mandell Mech. Corp., 38 AD3d 363 [2007]). Concur — Saxe, J.P., Friedman, Acosta, DeGrasse and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

87 A.D.3d 918, 929 N.Y.2d 585, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morris-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack