Cammon v. City of New York
New York Court of Appeals
1DissentRosenblatt, J.
We concur with the majority insofar as it holds that maritime law does not preempt *591Labor Law § 200 or § 241 (6). In our view, however, maritime law preempts Labor Law § 240 (1) and we therefore dissent in part.
As a threshold matter, admiralty jurisdiction exists in this case (see, Jerome B. Grubart, Inc. v Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 513 US 527). Plaintiff was injured as he stood on a “float stage” in navigable waters. At the time of the accident, plaintiff was repairing a wood fender system on a pier extending over the East River. The City of New York owned the pier and used it in…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Southern Pacific Company v. JensenSupreme Court of the United States · 1916
- Romero v. International Terminal Operating Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1959
- Pope & Talbot, Inc. v. HawnSupreme Court of the United States · 1953
- Kermarec v. Compagnie Generale TransatlantiqueSupreme Court of the United States · 1959
- Jerome B. Grubart, Inc. v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1995
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.