Roldan v. Molyneux

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Roldan v. Molyneux

227 A.D.2d 240, 642 N.Y.S.2d 297, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5205

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

DecidedMay 16, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 227 A.D.2d 240 (Roldan v. Molyneux) 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

Roldan v. Molyneux, 227 A.D.2d 240, 642 N.Y.S.2d 297, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5205 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard B. Lowe, III, J.), entered on or about August 15, 1995, which, inter alia, granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) and denied defendants-appellants’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff, who was injured as the result of a fall when cleaning for the first time the top of a newly constructed glass enclosure, was not engaged in the type of routine household window washing maintenance work excluded from statutory protection (see, Brown v Christopher St. Owners Corp., 87 NY2d 938). The IAS Court therefore properly imposed liability on defendants for failure to furnish safety devices (Labor Law § 240 [1]). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Rubin, Kupferman and Nardelli, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard B. Lowe, III, J.), entered on or about August 15, 1995, which, inter alia, granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) and denied defendants-appellants’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff, who was injured as the result of a fall when cleaning for the first time the top of a newly constructed glass enclosure, was not engaged in the type of routine household window washing maintenance work excluded from statutory protection (see, Brown v Christopher St. Owners Corp., 87 NY2d 938). The IAS Court therefore properly imposed liability on defendants for failure to furnish safety devices (Labor Law § 240 [1]). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Rubin, Kupferman and Nardelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

227 A.D.2d 240, 642 N.Y.S.2d 297, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5205, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roldan-v-molyneux-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack