Legal Opinion
Striegel v. Hillcrest Heights Development Corp.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided November 12, 1999PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
—Order affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Plaintiff was injured when he slid 25 to 30 feet down a frost-covered plywood roof, from the peak to the eave, while attempting to unload felt at the peak of the roof. Supreme Court properly granted that part of plaintiff’s motion seeking partial summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). The test for determining whether Labor Law § 240 (1) applies is whether the manner of injury is “the type of hazard that Labor Law § 240 (1) was designed to protect against” (Doty v Eastman Kodak Co., 229 AD2d 961, lv dismissed in part and…
2Cases cited4 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
- Doty v. Eastman Kodak Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1996
- Moore v. Elmwood-Franklin SchoolAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1998
3Cited by2 opinions
- D'Acunti v. New York City School Construction AuthorityAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2002
- Morrison v. Christa Construction, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2003