Legal Opinion · Dissent

Bennion v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.

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

Decided July 12, 1996Published

1Dissent

Doerr and Boehm, JJ. (dissenting in part).

We agree with the majority that Supreme Court properly dismissed the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action. We respectfully dissent, however, from the majority’s determination that plaintiff is entitled to recover under Labor Law § 240 (1). Plaintiff’s installation of

*1004the collar on flexible duct work on the existing duct work in the warehouse building constitutes an alteration or repair of the structure, which is an enumerated activity under Labor Law § 240 (1) (see, Savigny v Marrano/ Marc Equity Corp., 221 AD2d 942; Kinsler v Lu-Four Assocs., 215 AD2d…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Ross v. Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Electric Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1993
  2. Rocovich v. Consolidated Edison Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1991
  3. Misseritti v. Mark IV Construction Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1995
  4. Spremo v. SpremoNew York Court of Appeals · 1993
  5. Carr v. Jacob Perl AssociatesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1994

7 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