Legal Opinion
Cohen v. Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided February 5, 2008PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Saxe, J.
Labor Law § 240 (1) requires that adequate safety devices be provided to workers for tasks that “entail a significant risk . . . because of the relative elevation at which the task must be performed” (see Rocovich v Consolidated Edison Co., 78 NY2d 509, 514 [1991]). The statute directs that the devices must be “so constructed, placed and operated as to give proper protection to a person so employed” (Labor Law § 240 [1]), explicitly recognizing that a defect in a device may derive not from its construction but from the way in which it is placed at the site. If a…
2Cases cited10 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
- Zimmer v. Chemung County Performing Arts, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1985
- Bland v. ManocherianNew York Court of Appeals · 1985
- Robinson v. East Medical CenterNew York Court of Appeals · 2006
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- CHIMBAY v. AvalonBay Communities, Inc.District Court, E.D. New York · 2008
- Roberti v. Advance Auto PartsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2008