Narrative Opinion Summary
In a personal injury case, the plaintiff appeals a Supreme Court order from February 10, 1997, which granted motions to dismiss claims based on violations of Labor Law § 241(6) from the defendants and third-party defendant T.F.L. Electrical, Inc. The appellate court affirms the order, concluding that the work performed by the plaintiff did not constitute construction work as defined under Labor Law § 241(6). The decision is supported by precedents, including *Vernieri v Empire Realty Co.* and *Walton v Devi Corp.* Costs are awarded to the respondents who filed separate briefs. Judges Ritter, Thompson, Goldstein, and McGinity concur with the decision.
Legal Issues Addressed
Application of Labor Law § 241(6)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that the specific work performed by the plaintiff did not meet the statutory definition of construction work under Labor Law § 241(6), thus not warranting the protection it affords.
Reasoning: The appellate court affirms the order, concluding that the work performed by the plaintiff did not constitute construction work as defined under Labor Law § 241(6).
Awarding of Costs to Respondentssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Costs were awarded to respondents who submitted separate briefs in the case, illustrating the court's discretion in cost allocation.
Reasoning: Costs are awarded to the respondents who filed separate briefs.
Precedential Support in Labor Law Casessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The decision to dismiss the claims was supported by precedents, indicating the application of prior case law in interpreting Labor Law § 241(6).
Reasoning: The decision is supported by precedents, including Vernieri v Empire Realty Co. and Walton v Devi Corp.