McSweeney v. Rochester Gas & Electric Corp.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance *879with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action. The injury allegedly sustained by Joseph H. McSweeney (plaintiff) did not result from "the extraordinary elevation risks envisioned by Labor Law § 240 (1)” (Rodriguez v Tietz Ctr. for Nursing Care, 84 NY2d 841, 843; see, Smith v New York State Elec. & Gas Corp., 82 NY2d 781, 783; Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 NY2d 494, 500-501; Rocovich v…
2Cases cited11 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
- Comes v. New York State Electric & Gas Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1993
- Lombardi v. StoutNew York Court of Appeals · 1992
- Rodriguez v. Margaret Tietz Center for Nursing Care, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1994
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Vernieri v. Empire Realty Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1995
- McGrath v. Lake Tree Village AssociatesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1995
- Cun-En Lin v. Holy Family MonumentsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2005
- Millard v. City of OgdensburgAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2000
- Greenwood v. ShearsonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1997
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.