Legal Opinion
Pulsifer v. Eastman Kodak Co.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided September 29, 1995PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed with costs to plaintiffs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment under Labor Law § 240 (1). Plaintiff Jerry Pulsifer was injured as he descended a ladder from one level of scaffolding to another, an activity covered by the statute (see, Brown v Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 188 AD2d 1014). Unlike the plaintiff in Bonaparte v Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. (188 AD2d 853), Pulsifer did not fall at the same level at which he had been working.
The court…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Duda v. John W. Rouse Construction Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1973
- Bonaparte v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1992
- Brown v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1992
- Rossi v. Main-South Hotel AssociatesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1990
- Knight v. Conopco, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1995
3Cited by4 opinions
- Pietrowski v. Are-East River Science Park, LLCAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
- DiPasquale v. M.J. Ogiony Builders, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
- Robinson v. City of New YorkNew York Supreme Court · 2004
- Robinson v. City of New YorkNew York Supreme Court, Bronx County · 2004