Legal Opinion

Kappel v. Fisher Bros.

New York Court of Appeals

Decided July 15, 1976PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Memorandum. The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed for the reasons stated by that court in its memorandum. (49 AD2d 578.) We add, however, that section 241 of the Labor Law was amended in 1969, nearly two and one-half years after the accident involved in this case and, as a result, it may no longer be necessary to establish, as plaintiff was required and failed to do here, that the building owner and general contractor actively controlled, directed or supervised the work. We also note that Kelly v Diesel Constr. Div. of Carl A. Morse, Inc. (35 NY2d 1), rélied upon by the…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Kelly v. Diesel Construction Division of Carl A. Morse, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1974
  2. Kappel v. Fisher Bros., 6th Ave. Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1975

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Ross v. Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Electric Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1993
  2. Haimes v. New York Telephone Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1978
  3. Nagel v. MetzgerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1984
  4. In Re World Trade Center Disaster Site LitigationDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2006
  5. Lawyer v. Rotterdam Ventures, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1994

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API