Narrative Opinion Summary
The order was unanimously affirmed without costs. The plaintiff was engaged in demolishing a concrete fire wall at the same elevation as his work site when a concrete block fell and struck his hand. The Supreme Court correctly granted the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment, dismissing the Labor Law § 240(1) claim, referencing relevant case law such as Misseritti v Mark IV Construction Co. and others. Additionally, the court properly dismissed the Labor Law § 241(6) claim, noting that the alleged violations of the Industrial Code either did not apply to the case or outlined general standards of care that do not establish liability under § 241(6), as supported by Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Electric Co. The appeal was from an order of the Supreme Court in Erie County, presided over by Justice Flaherty. The Justices present for the decision included Denman, P.J., Green, Hayes, Balio, and Fallon.
Legal Issues Addressed
Labor Law § 240(1) Claim Dismissalsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 240(1) claim, indicating that the plaintiff did not meet the criteria for liability under this section.
Reasoning: The Supreme Court correctly granted the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment, dismissing the Labor Law § 240(1) claim, referencing relevant case law such as Misseritti v Mark IV Construction Co. and others.
Labor Law § 241(6) Claim Dismissalsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court held that the alleged violations of the Industrial Code did not apply or constituted general standards of care, thus failing to establish liability under § 241(6).
Reasoning: Additionally, the court properly dismissed the Labor Law § 241(6) claim, noting that the alleged violations of the Industrial Code either did not apply to the case or outlined general standards of care that do not establish liability under § 241(6), as supported by Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Electric Co.
Summary Judgment Affirmationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision without costs, supporting the dismissal of the claims against the defendant.
Reasoning: The order was unanimously affirmed without costs.