Legal Opinion
Hernadez v. Ten Ten Co.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided July 27, 2006PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis B. York, J.), entered October 14, 2004, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the brief, granted Prudential’s motion and Schmergel Construction’s cross motion, inter alia, for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs causes of action under Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6), unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion and cross motion as to the Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6) claims denied and the section 240 (1) and section 241 (6) causes of action, the third-party complaint and all cross claims and counterclaims sounding…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Prats v. Port Authority of New York & New JerseyNew York Court of Appeals · 2003
- Griffin v. New York City Transit AuthorityAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2005
- Rice v. City of CortlandAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1999
- Snowden v. New York City Transit AuthorityAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1998
- Hernandez v. Ten Ten Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2006
3Cited by4 opinions
- DelRosario v. United Nations Federal Credit UnionAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- Blanco v. NBC Trust No. 1996AAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014
- Carpentieri v. 1438 S. Park Ave. Co., LLCAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2023
- DelRosario v. United Nations Federal Credit UnionAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013