Legal Opinion · Dissent

Cahill v. Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided February 24, 2004Published

1Dissent

Andrias, J.P.,

dissents in a memorandum as follows: I respectfully dissent and would reverse and deny plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability for violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) and remand the matter for further proceedings.

In granting plaintiff summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, the motion court found that defendant failed to see that plaintiff was provided with proper safety devices so as to prevent his fall. It also discounted defendant’s “recalcitrant worker” defense because defendant acknowledged that the instructions to plaintiff as to the use of…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Blake v. Neighborhood Housing Services of New York City, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 2003
  2. Zimmer v. Chemung County Performing Arts, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1985
  3. Smith v. Hooker Chemicals & Plastics Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1982
  4. Sanango v. 200 East 16th Street Housing Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2002
  5. Montgomery v. Federal Express Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2003

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API