Nastasi v. Bradley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Nastasi v. Bradley

110 A.D.2d 628, 487 N.Y.S.2d 116, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48524

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

DecidedApril 1, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 110 A.D.2d 628 (Nastasi v. Bradley) 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

Nastasi v. Bradley, 110 A.D.2d 628, 487 N.Y.S.2d 116, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48524 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

The court erred in its charge to the jury in two important respects. The court failed to apprise the jury that under Labor Law § 240, it could find that the defendant was required to supply the plaintiff some safety device in addition to or instead of a ladder. Instead, the court charged that the law requires “ladders, which shall be so constructed, placed, operated and maintained as to give proper protection to the person performing the work”. This charge removed from the jury any prerogative to find that ladders alone were insufficient to protect the plaintiff under Labor Law § 240. By failing to charge all relevant portions of Labor Law § 240, the trial court insufficiently apprised the jury of defendant’s obligations thereunder.

The court also erred in failing to instruct the jury that the defendant’s duty under Labor Law § 241 (6) was nondelegable (see, Celestine v City of New York, 86 AD2d 592, affd 59 NY2d 938).

These errors require that a new trial be held. Thompson, J. P., Bracken, O’Connor and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

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

The court erred in its charge to the jury in two important respects. The court failed to apprise the jury that under Labor Law § 240, it could find that the defendant was required to supply the plaintiff some safety device in addition to or instead of a ladder. Instead, the court charged that the law requires “ladders, which shall be so constructed, placed, operated and maintained as to give proper protection to the person performing the work”. This charge removed from the jury any prerogative to find that ladders alone were insufficient to protect the plaintiff under Labor Law § 240. By failing to charge all relevant portions of Labor Law § 240, the trial court insufficiently apprised the jury of defendant’s obligations thereunder.

The court also erred in failing to instruct the jury that the defendant’s duty under Labor Law § 241 (6) was nondelegable (see, Celestine v City of New York, 86 AD2d 592, affd 59 NY2d 938).

These errors require that a new trial be held. Thompson, J. P., Bracken, O’Connor and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

110 A.D.2d 628, 487 N.Y.S.2d 116, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48524, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nastasi-v-bradley-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack