Legal Opinion

Rought v. Price Chopper Operating Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided May 27, 2010Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partRose, J.

We respectfully dissent from the view that regulations meant to protect workers from the hazards of material hoisting operations should be applied to the process of installing electrical *1417wires by fishing or pulling them through conduit. There is no evidence that the forklift, rope and pulleys employed here were actually lifting or suspending the wires that recoiled and caused plaintiffs fall.

Supreme Court correctly summarized the record regarding this issue in its discussion of the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action as follows: “Even though the forklift was on the lower floor, it was being…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Gibbons v. HantmanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1977
  2. Smith v. Homart Development Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1997
  3. Flihan v. Cornell UniversityAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2001
  4. Gibbons v. HantmanNew York Court of Appeals · 1978
  5. Mattison v. WilmotAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1996

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API