Legal Opinion · Dissent

Striegel v. Hillcrest Heights Development Corp.

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

Decided November 12, 1999Published

1Dissent

Hayes and Balio, JJ.

(dissenting in part). We respectfully dissent in part. In our view, Supreme Court erred in granting that part of plaintiffs motion seeking partial summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). Plaintiffs slide down the roof, rather than off the roof, is not the type of hazard that Labor Law § 240 (1) was designed to protect against (see, Moore v Elmwood-Franklin School, 249 AD2d 923, lv denied 92 NY2d 1001; Doty v Eastman Kodak Co., 229 AD2d 961, lv dismissed in part and denied in part 89 NY2d 855). We therefore would modify the order by denying…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Doty v. Eastman Kodak Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1996
  2. Moore v. Elmwood-Franklin SchoolAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1998

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

Powered by the Exa API