Mamo v. Rochester Gas & Electric Corp.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
—Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment under Labor Law § 240 (1), and properly denied that part of defendant’s motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss that cause of action. A utility pole and its attached hardware, cable and support systems constitute a structure covered by Labor Law § 240 (1) (see, Lewis-Moors v Contel of N. Y, 78 NY2d 942, 943; Salzler v New York Tel. Co., 192 AD2d 1104; Dedario v New York Tel. Co., 162 AD2d…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Ross v. Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Electric Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1993
- Comes v. New York State Electric & Gas Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1993
- Lombardi v. StoutNew York Court of Appeals · 1992
- Lewis-Moors v. Contel of New York, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1991
- Nagel v. MetzgerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1984
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Vernieri v. Empire Realty Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1995
- Adamczyk v. Hillview Estates Development Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1996
- Durfee v. Eastman Kodak Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1995
- Enderlin v. Hebert Industrial Insulation, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1996
- Rice v. PCM Development Agency Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1996
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.