Legal Opinion
Wilinski v. 334 East 92nd Housing Development Fund Corp.
New York Court of Appeals
Decided October 25, 2011PublishedCited by 187 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
ClPARICK, J.
Some New York courts have interpreted our decision in Misseritti v Mark IV Constr. Co. (86 NY2d 487 [1995]) to preclude *5recovery under Labor Law § 240 (1) where a worker sustains an injury caused by a falling object whose base stands at the same level as the worker. We reject that interpretation and hold that such a circumstance does not categorically bar the worker from recovery under section 240 (1). However, in this case, an issue of fact exists as to whether the worker’s injury resulted from the lack of a statutorily prescribed protective device.
I
On…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Ross v. Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Electric Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1993
- Rocovich v. Consolidated Edison Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1991
- Narducci v. Manhasset Bay AssociatesNew York Court of Appeals · 2001
- Runner v. New York Stock Exchange, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 2009
- Misseritti v. Mark IV Construction Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1995
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by187 opinions
- Fabrizi v. 1095 Avenue of Americas, L.L.C.New York Court of Appeals · 2014
- Marc A. Nicometi v. The Vineyards of Fredonia, LLC / Scott Pfohl v. Western New York Plumbing-Ellicott Plumbing and Remodeling Co.New York Court of Appeals · 2015
- Salazar v. Novalex Contracting Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 2011
- Doto v. Astoria Energy II, LLCAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2015
- Kropp v. Town of ShandakenAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
182 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.