From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hayes v. Eastman Kodak Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Sep 27, 1988
143 A.D.2d 510 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

Opinion

September 27, 1988

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Monroe County, Cornelius, J.

Present — Callahan, J.P., Denman, Boomer, Balio and Davis, JJ.


Order unanimously reversed on the law with costs and motion granted, in accordance with the following memorandum: The uncontroverted evidence in support of plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability establishes that the safety devices provided to plaintiff were inadequate for the work he was directed to perform. The line attached to plaintiff's safety belt was too short to provide protection while he was moving from one work station to another (see, Conway v New York State Teachers' Retirement Sys., 141 A.D.2d 957). Thus, as a matter of law, defendant owner violated its duty under Labor Law § 240 and partial summary judgment should have been granted in favor of plaintiff.


Summaries of

Hayes v. Eastman Kodak Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Sep 27, 1988
143 A.D.2d 510 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)
Case details for

Hayes v. Eastman Kodak Company

Case Details

Full title:THOMAS HAYES, Appellant, v. EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY, Respondent, et al.…

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

Date published: Sep 27, 1988

Citations

143 A.D.2d 510 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

Citing Cases

Tiernan v. County of Monroe

When decedent was reached by other workers after the accident, he was wearing his safety belt and two…

Spike v. Hollands' Lumber Co., Inc.

Plaintiffs established that plaintiff was working on a scaffold approximately 5 to 5 1/2 feet above the floor…