Home/New York Court of Appeals/Smith v. New York State Electric & Gas Corp.

Smith v. New York State Electric & Gas Corp.

624 N.E.2d 677, 82 N.Y.2d 781, 604 N.Y.S.2d 540, 1993 N.Y. LEXIS 3275
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedOctober 14, 1993
StatusPublished
Cited by29 cases

This text of 624 N.E.2d 677 (Smith v. New York State Electric & Gas Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Smith v. New York State Electric & Gas Corp., 624 N.E.2d 677, 82 N.Y.2d 781, 604 N.Y.S.2d 540, 1993 N.Y. LEXIS 3275 (N.Y. 1993).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, defendant’s cross motion for partial summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action granted, and the certified question answered in the affirmative.

Plaintiff was injured while dismantling a coal conveyer system located in a subterranean concrete vault. The dismantled machinery was removed from the underground work area by a crane situated at ground level with its cable lowered through an opening in the vault’s ceiling. A 200-pound metal *783 tension ball attached to the cable allowed the dismantled machinery to be dragged along the concrete floor until it could be hoisted to ground level. Plaintiff’s injury occurred when equipment snagged on the vault floor’s uneven surface and the crane operator, unaware of the situation, continued to exert tension on the cable until it snapped, propelling the tension ball against plaintiff.

The Appellate Division, with one Justice dissenting, modified an order of Supreme Court by reversing so much thereof as granted defendants’ cross motion for partial summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action. That Court concluded that plaintiffs’ section 240 (1) claim was viable because the work activity plaintiff was engaged in exposed him to risks associated with elevation differentials. Based on our holdings in Rocovich v Consolidated Edison Co. (78 NY2d 509) and Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co. (81 NY2d 494), we disagree and hold that plaintiff’s injury did not result from an elevation-related hazard.

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

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order reversed, etc.

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

Related

Giraldo v. Highmark Ind., LLC
2024 NY Slip Op 02042 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2024)
Joseph v. City of New York
2016 NY Slip Op 6649 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Mohamed v. City of Watervliet
106 A.D.3d 1244 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Seaman v. Bellmore Fire District
59 A.D.3d 515 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Guenther v. Modern Continental Companies
561 F. Supp. 2d 317 (E.D. New York, 2008)
Biafora v. City of New York
27 A.D.3d 506 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Jordan v. Blue Circle Atlantic, Inc.
306 A.D.2d 741 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Hargobin v. K.A.F.C.I. Corp.
282 A.D.2d 31 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Simon v. City of New York
265 A.D.2d 318 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
McGuire v. Independent Cement Corp.
255 A.D.2d 646 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Melber v. 6333 Main Street, Inc.
698 N.E.2d 933 (New York Court of Appeals, 1998)
Boyd v. Bethlehem Steel Corp.
244 A.D.2d 983 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Brechue v. Town of Wheatfield
241 A.D.2d 935 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Friot v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
240 A.D.2d 890 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Charles v. City of New York
227 A.D.2d 429 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
Lysiak v. Murray Realty Co.
227 A.D.2d 746 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
Adamczyk v. Hillview Estates Development Corp.
226 A.D.2d 1049 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
Smith v. Hovnanian Co., Inc.
218 A.D.2d 68 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
McCole v. City of New York
221 A.D.2d 605 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
Misseritti v. Mark IV Construction Co.
657 N.E.2d 1318 (New York Court of Appeals, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
624 N.E.2d 677, 82 N.Y.2d 781, 604 N.Y.S.2d 540, 1993 N.Y. LEXIS 3275, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-new-york-state-electric-gas-corp-ny-1993.