Roberts v. Caldwell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Roberts v. Caldwell

23 A.D.3d 210, 806 N.Y.S.2d 8

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

DecidedNovember 10, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 23 A.D.3d 210 (Roberts v. Caldwell) 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

Roberts v. Caldwell, 23 A.D.3d 210, 806 N.Y.S.2d 8 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Sallie Manzanet, J.), entered September 30, 2004, which granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment as to liability on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, and denied defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment insofar as it sought dismissal of plaintiff’s Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6) claims, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

There is no dispute that plaintiff, while engaged in performing contracted-for renovations and alterations on defendant’s premises, fell from an inadequately secured ladder. While plaintiff may not have been performing his assigned duties at the time of the accident, he was helping coworkers with other renovation related work on defendant’s premises, and thus should not be deprived of the protection of Labor Law § 240 (1) or § 241 (6) (see Calaway v Metro Roofing & Sheet Metal Works, 284 AD2d 285 [2001]; Reeves v Red Wing Co., 139 AD2d 935 [1988]).

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Tom, Andrias, Sullivan and Malone, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Sallie Manzanet, J.), entered September 30, 2004, which granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment as to liability on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, and denied defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment insofar as it sought dismissal of plaintiff’s Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6) claims, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

There is no dispute that plaintiff, while engaged in performing contracted-for renovations and alterations on defendant’s premises, fell from an inadequately secured ladder. While plaintiff may not have been performing his assigned duties at the time of the accident, he was helping coworkers with other renovation related work on defendant’s premises, and thus should not be deprived of the protection of Labor Law § 240 (1) or § 241 (6) (see Calaway v Metro Roofing & Sheet Metal Works, 284 AD2d 285 [2001]; Reeves v Red Wing Co., 139 AD2d 935 [1988]).

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Tom, Andrias, Sullivan and Malone, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 A.D.3d 210, 806 N.Y.S.2d 8, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roberts-v-caldwell-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack