Legal Opinion
Wright v. State
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided April 5, 1985No. Claim No. 66605PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*1061Claimants contend on appeal that the court’s construction of Labor Law § 240 is in error. We agree. The fact that Labor Law § 240 (2) provides that scaffolding more than 20 feet from the ground or floor “shall have” suitable guardrails and that a failure to provide guardrails is, without more, a violation of the section, does not mean that a lack of guardrails may not, in appropriate circumstances, constitute a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) for failure “to give proper protection” to persons working on scaffolding less than 20 feet from the ground or floor (see, Heath v Soloff Constr., 107…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Ed Guth Realty, Inc. v. GingoldNew York Court of Appeals · 1974
- Heath v. Soloff Construction, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1985
- Kalofonos v. StateAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1984
- Ed Guth Realty, Inc. v. GingoldAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1973
- Sullivan v. HeldAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1981
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Beesimer v. Albany Avenue/Route 9 Realty, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1995
- Lickers v. StateAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1986
- Cappiello v. Telehouse International Corp. of AmericaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1993
- Lolik v. Big V Supermarkets, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1994