Legal Opinion · Dissent
Cherry v. Time Warner, Inc.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided August 18, 2009Published
1Dissent
McGuire, J. (dissenting).
I disagree with the majority that a triable issue of fact exists with respect to whether plaintiffs actions were the sole proximate cause of his injuries. In my view, Montgomery v Federal Express Corp. (4 NY3d 805 [2005]) and Robinson v East Med. Ctr., LP (6 NY3d 550 [2006]) control this appeal and require that plaintiffs Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action be dismissed. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.
Plaintiff was hired by defendant New England Construction Company to perform carpentry work on a project on which New England was a subcontractor. On the morning of…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Blake v. Neighborhood Housing Services of New York City, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 2003
- Zimmer v. Chemung County Performing Arts, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1985
- Gordon v. Eastern Railway Supply, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1993
- Cahill v. TRIBOROUGHNew York Court of Appeals · 2004
- Robinson v. East Medical CenterNew York Court of Appeals · 2006
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.