From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Carroll v. Timko Contracting Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 13, 1999
264 A.D.2d 706 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Summary

In Carroll v Timko Contr. Corp., 264 AD2d 706, 694 NYS2d 744, the Second Department found no violation of § 240(1) where "[t]he injured plaintiff was not working at an elevated work site, nor was he struck by an object positioned at a higher level.

Summary of this case from DeGabriel v. Strong Place Realty, LLC

Opinion

Argued May 28, 1999

September 13, 1999

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Hillery, J.), dated July 9, 1998, as denied that branch of their motion which was for summary judgment on their cause of action pursuant to Labor Law § 240 Lab. (1), and granted that branch of the defendant's cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing that cause of action on the ground that the accident did not involve an elevation-related hazard.

Tendy Cantor, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Jonathan D. Katz of counsel), for appellants.

Appelbaum, Bauman Appelbaum, Liberty, N.Y. (Mark P. Cambareri of counsel), for defendant third-party plaintiff respondent.

Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman Dicker, New York, N Y (Michael Boulhosa and Meredith Drucker of counsel), for third-party defendant-respondent.

FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, ANITA R. FLORIO, and SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

While the injured plaintiff was standing on level ground, hoisting a reel of wire up two steps onto a platform, a pipe slipped out of his hands and he fell. The instant accident does not come within the scope of hazards covered by Labor Law § 240 Lab.(1) ( see, Melber v. 6333 Main Str., 91 N.Y. 759; Rocovich v. Consolidated Edison Co., 78 N.Y.2d 509, 514; Rodriguez v. Tietz Ctr. for Nursing Care, 84 N.Y.2d 841). The injured plaintiff was not working at an elevated worksite, nor was he struck by an object positioned at a higher level. The mere fact that he was lifting a heavy object did not give rise to liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240 Labor (1) ( see, Narrow v. Crane-Hogan Structural Svs., 202 A.D.2d 841).

SANTUCCI, J.P., KRAUSMAN, FLORIO, and FEUERSTEIN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Carroll v. Timko Contracting Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 13, 1999
264 A.D.2d 706 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

In Carroll v Timko Contr. Corp., 264 AD2d 706, 694 NYS2d 744, the Second Department found no violation of § 240(1) where "[t]he injured plaintiff was not working at an elevated work site, nor was he struck by an object positioned at a higher level.

Summary of this case from DeGabriel v. Strong Place Realty, LLC
Case details for

Carroll v. Timko Contracting Corp.

Case Details

Full title:Michael Carroll, et al., appellants, v. Timko Contracting Corp., defendant…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Sep 13, 1999

Citations

264 A.D.2d 706 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
694 N.Y.S.2d 744

Citing Cases

Sullivan v. N.Y. Athletic Club of N.Y.

Rather, the statute was designed to prevent accidents in which a protective device " ‘proved inadequate to…

Sullivan v. N.Y. Athletic Club of N.Y.

The plaintiff's evidence demonstrated that the cause of his injury was the weight of the beam he was…