Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Bailey v. Irish Development Corp.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided July 27, 2000Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partSpain, J.
While I agree with the majority’s resolution of the Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) issues, I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that Labor Law § 240 (1) is inapplicable to the facts of this case. In contrast to Gentile v New York City Hous. Auth. (228 AD2d 296, lv dismissed 89 NY2d 981), upon which the majority relies, plaintiff William R. Bailey, Sr. (hereinafter plaintiff) was not engaged in the mere hauling away of construction debris. Rather, he was engaged in the removal of frost-damaged concrete footings which had been installed in connection with the construction of a building. The…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Gordon v. Eastern Railway Supply, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1993
- Curley v. Gateway Communications, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1998
- Gentile v. New York City Housing AuthorityAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1996
- Hutchins v. Finch, Pruyn & Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1999
- Dankulich v. Felchar Manufacturing Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1998