Legal Opinion
Aruck v. Xerox Corp.
New York Supreme Court
Decided June 29, 1989PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
David O. Boehm, J.
Among the issues presented by this case is the interesting *368and, apparently, novel question of whether a worker who falls upon, rather than from, a device used as a scaffold comes within the protection of subdivision (1) of section 240 of the Labor Law.
On November 19, 1982, plaintiff, Joseph Aruck, was injured while working as a laborer for John B. Pike & Son, Inc., general contractor for the construction of an addition to a building owned by defendant, Xerox Corporation (Xerox). At the time of his injury plaintiff was standing on the platform of a mobile…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Zimmer v. Chemung County Performing Arts, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1985
- Bland v. ManocherianNew York Court of Appeals · 1985
- Broderick v. Cauldwell-Wingate Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1950
- DaBolt v. Bethlehem Steel Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1983
- Nagel v. MetzgerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1984
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Ross v. Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Electric Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1992
- Brown v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1992
- Aruck v. Xerox Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1990
- Manning v. Town of LewistonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1993