Ortega v. City of New York
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Acosta, J.
At issue in this case is whether a plaintiff seeking summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim must establish as part of his prima facie case that the injury was foreseeable. We hold that a plaintiff is not required to demonstrate that the injury was foreseeable, except in the context of a collapse of a permanent structure (see e.g. Jones v 414 Equities LLC, 57 AD3d 65 [2008]). Outside the permanent structure collapse context, a plaintiff simply needs to show that he or she was injured while engaged in a covered activity, and that the defendant’s failure…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Ross v. Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Electric Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1993
- 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
- Runner v. New York Stock Exchange, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 2009
- Wilinski v. 334 East 92nd Housing Development Fund Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 2011
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Leveron v. Prana Growth Fund I, L.P.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2020
- Rivas v. Seward Park Hous. Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2023
- Cazho v. Urban Bldrs. Group, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2022
- Rincon v. New York City Hous. Auth.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2022
- Rincon v. New York City Hous. Auth.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2022
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.