Bauer v. Female Academy of Sacred Heart
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1DissentLahtinen, J.
We respectfully dissent. In our prior decision (see, 250 AD2d 298), this Court acknowledged that Labor Law § 202 was intended to afford the same protections to persons engaged in the occupation of window cleaning as that provided under Labor Law § 240 to enumerated work*812ers who perform specified activities at elevated heights and, accordingly, a Labor Law § 202 cause of action was mutually exclusive of an action brought under Labor Law § 240. Now the majority concludes that a 1970 amendment to Labor Law § 202 (see, L 1970, ch 822) extinguished its absolute liability protection for window…
2Cases cited5 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
- Pollard v. Trivia Building Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1943
- Mayblum v. ChuNew York Court of Appeals · 1986
- Bauer v. Female Academy of the Sacred HeartAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1998