Rodriguez v. Margaret Tietz Center for Nursing Care, Inc.

New York Court of Appeals

Rodriguez v. Margaret Tietz Center for Nursing Care, Inc.

640 N.E.2d 1134, 84 N.Y.2d 841, 616 N.Y.S.2d 900, 1994 N.Y. LEXIS 2677

New York Court of Appeals·Decided September 13, 1994·Published·Cited by 125 cases

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The judgment appealed from and the order of the Appellate Division brought up for review should be reversed, with costs, and plaintiff’s cause of action based on Labor Law §240 dismissed.

Plaintiff in this case was exposed to the usual and ordinary dangers of a construction site, and not the extraordinary elevation risks envisioned by Labor Law § 240 (1). In placing a 120-pound beam onto the ground from seven inches above his head with the assistance of three other co-workers, Rodriguez

*844 was not faced with the special elevation risks contemplated by the statute (see, Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 NY2d 494, 501; Rocovich v Consolidated Edison Co., 78 NY2d 509, 514).

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick concur in memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), judgment appealed from and order of the Appellate Division brought up for review reversed, etc.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The judgment appealed from and the order of the Appellate Division brought up for review should be reversed, with costs, and plaintiff’s cause of action based on Labor Law §240 dismissed.

Plaintiff in this case was exposed to the usual and ordinary dangers of a construction site, and not the extraordinary elevation risks envisioned by Labor Law § 240 (1). In placing a 120-pound beam onto the ground from seven inches above his head with the assistance of three other co-workers, Rodriguez

*844 was not faced with the special elevation risks contemplated by the statute (see, Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 NY2d 494, 501; Rocovich v Consolidated Edison Co., 78 NY2d 509, 514).

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick concur in memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), judgment appealed from and order of the Appellate Division brought up for review reversed, etc.

Rodriguez v. Margaret Tietz Center for Nursing Care, Inc., 640 N.E.2d 1134, 84 N.Y.2d 841, 616 N.Y.S.2d 900, 1994 N.Y. LEXIS 2677 (N.Y. 1994).

Pincite

640 N.E.2d 1134 (Rodriguez v. Margaret Tietz Center for Nursing Care, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related