Rudolph v. Hofstra University

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rudolph v. Hofstra University

225 A.D.2d 680, 640 N.Y.2d 126, 640 N.Y.S.2d 126, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2620

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 18, 1996·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

[681] The specific standards of conduct required by 12 NYCRR 23-1.24 allow the plaintiff’s Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action to withstand a motion for summary judgment (see, Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 NY2d 494). The plaintiffs affidavit submitted in opposition to the cross motions for summary judgment raises a question of fact as to whether any of the safety devices required by the regulation were provided for his use.

However, the Labor Law § 200 cause of action asserted against the defendant Hofstra University was properly dismissed, as there was no showing that Hofstra University had any direction or control over the work giving rise to this accident (see, Comes v New York State Elec. & Gas Corp., 82 NY2d 876; Simms v City of New York, 221 AD2d 332; Pazmino v Woodside Dev. Co., 212 AD2d 520; Mamo v Rochester Gas & Elec. Corp., 209 AD2d 948; Tambasco v Norton Co., 207 AD2d 618). Balletta, J. P., Joy, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

[681] The specific standards of conduct required by 12 NYCRR 23-1.24 allow the plaintiff’s Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action to withstand a motion for summary judgment (see, Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 NY2d 494). The plaintiffs affidavit submitted in opposition to the cross motions for summary judgment raises a question of fact as to whether any of the safety devices required by the regulation were provided for his use.

However, the Labor Law § 200 cause of action asserted against the defendant Hofstra University was properly dismissed, as there was no showing that Hofstra University had any direction or control over the work giving rise to this accident (see, Comes v New York State Elec. & Gas Corp., 82 NY2d 876; Simms v City of New York, 221 AD2d 332; Pazmino v Woodside Dev. Co., 212 AD2d 520; Mamo v Rochester Gas & Elec. Corp., 209 AD2d 948; Tambasco v Norton Co., 207 AD2d 618). Balletta, J. P., Joy, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

Rudolph v. Hofstra University, 225 A.D.2d 680, 640 N.Y.2d 126, 640 N.Y.S.2d 126, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2620 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

225 A.D.2d 680 (Rudolph v. Hofstra University) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related