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

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

DecidedMarch 18, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 225 A.D.2d 680 (Rudolph v. Hofstra University) 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

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

Opinion

[681]*681The 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]*681The 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

225 A.D.2d 680, 640 N.Y.2d 126, 640 N.Y.S.2d 126, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2620, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rudolph-v-hofstra-university-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack