Van Alstyne v. New York State Thruway Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Van Alstyne v. New York State Thruway Authority

244 A.D.2d 978, 665 N.Y.S.2d 220, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12408

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

DecidedNovember 19, 1997

DocketClaim No. 91046

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 244 A.D.2d 978 (Van Alstyne v. New York State Thruway Authority) 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

Van Alstyne v. New York State Thruway Authority, 244 A.D.2d 978, 665 N.Y.S.2d 220, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12408 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: The Court of Claims properly granted claimants’ motion for summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) and denied defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment based upon the recalcitrant worker defense. Edward Van Alstyne, Jr. (claimant) was injured in a fall from an elevated girder at the site of a bridge rehabilitation project, and defendant asserted the recalcitrant worker defense based upon the failure of claimant to tie-off his lanyard on the available static lines. Labor Law § 240 (1) imposes absolute liability where, as here, an injured worker establishes a violation of the statute and that the violation was a proximate cause of the injury (see, Zimmer v Chemung County Performing Arts, 65 NY2d 513, 518-519, rearg denied 65 NY2d 1054). Any negligence on the part of the injured worker will not [979]*979relieve a defendant of its absolute liability (see, Rocovich v Consolidated Edison Co., 78 NY2d 509, 513). There is no evidence that claimant purposefully refused to use the safety equipment that was provided (see, Gordon v Eastern Ry. Supply, 82 NY2d 555, 562-563). (Appeal from Order of Court of Claims, Midey, Jr., J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Law-ton, J. P., Hayes, Doerr, Balio and Fallon, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: The Court of Claims properly granted claimants’ motion for summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) and denied defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment based upon the recalcitrant worker defense. Edward Van Alstyne, Jr. (claimant) was injured in a fall from an elevated girder at the site of a bridge rehabilitation project, and defendant asserted the recalcitrant worker defense based upon the failure of claimant to tie-off his lanyard on the available static lines. Labor Law § 240 (1) imposes absolute liability where, as here, an injured worker establishes a violation of the statute and that the violation was a proximate cause of the injury (see, Zimmer v Chemung County Performing Arts, 65 NY2d 513, 518-519, rearg denied 65 NY2d 1054). Any negligence on the part of the injured worker will not [979]*979relieve a defendant of its absolute liability (see, Rocovich v Consolidated Edison Co., 78 NY2d 509, 513). There is no evidence that claimant purposefully refused to use the safety equipment that was provided (see, Gordon v Eastern Ry. Supply, 82 NY2d 555, 562-563). (Appeal from Order of Court of Claims, Midey, Jr., J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Law-ton, J. P., Hayes, Doerr, Balio and Fallon, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

244 A.D.2d 978, 665 N.Y.S.2d 220, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12408, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/van-alstyne-v-new-york-state-thruway-authority-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack