Rosen v. General Electric Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rosen v. General Electric Co.

204 A.D.2d 978, 614 N.Y.S.2d 951

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

DecidedMay 27, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 204 A.D.2d 978 (Rosen v. General Electric Co.) 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

Rosen v. General Electric Co., 204 A.D.2d 978, 614 N.Y.S.2d 951 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied plaintiffs’ motion to amend the complaint to allege additional causes of action based upon Labor Law § 240 (1). Plaintiffs’ decedent was not engaged in an activity protected under section 240 (1) at the time of his accident (see, Jock v Fien, 80 NY2d 965, 968). Nor was he engaged in demolition work, but was salvaging and removing materials and equipment at the plant owned by defendant General Electric Company. Although the plant was scheduled for demolition, the work of plaintiffs’ decedent "was not inciden[979]*979tal or necessary to * * * the scheduled demolition work” (Meehan v Mobil Oil Corp., 184 AD2d 1021, 1022, Iv dismissed 80 NY2d 925). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Joslin, J.—Amended Complaint.) Present—Green, J. P., Pine, Balio, Callahan and Boehm, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied plaintiffs’ motion to amend the complaint to allege additional causes of action based upon Labor Law § 240 (1). Plaintiffs’ decedent was not engaged in an activity protected under section 240 (1) at the time of his accident (see, Jock v Fien, 80 NY2d 965, 968). Nor was he engaged in demolition work, but was salvaging and removing materials and equipment at the plant owned by defendant General Electric Company. Although the plant was scheduled for demolition, the work of plaintiffs’ decedent "was not inciden[979]*979tal or necessary to * * * the scheduled demolition work” (Meehan v Mobil Oil Corp., 184 AD2d 1021, 1022, Iv dismissed 80 NY2d 925). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Joslin, J.—Amended Complaint.) Present—Green, J. P., Pine, Balio, Callahan and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

204 A.D.2d 978, 614 N.Y.S.2d 951, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosen-v-general-electric-co-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack