Legal Opinion
Striegel v. Hillcrest Heights Development Corp.
New York Court of Appeals
Decided October 21, 2003PublishedCited by 48 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Smith, J.
The issue in this case is whether plaintiff’s accident was covered under Labor Law § 240 (1). We agree with the courts below that it was.
Defendant Hillcrest Heights Development Corporation retained plaintiffs employer, Sahlem’s Roofing & Siding, Inc., to perform work on the roofs of newly built homes. According to plaintiffs pretrial testimony, on the day of the accident, he was instructed to lay felt (a material used for insulation) and shingles on the roof of a house under construction. As plaintiff was walking along the ridge (where both sides of the roof…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Ross v. Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Electric Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1993
- Rocovich v. Consolidated Edison Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1991
3Cited by48 opinions
- Marc A. Nicometi v. The Vineyards of Fredonia, LLC / Scott Pfohl v. Western New York Plumbing-Ellicott Plumbing and Remodeling Co.New York Court of Appeals · 2015
- Poracki v. St. Mary's Roman Catholic ChurchAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
- Dooley v. Peerless Importers, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2007
- McCallister v. 200 Park, L.P.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
- Torres v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2015
43 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.