green
Positive treatment
Trending · 88 recent citers
20.3 score
Treatment trajectory · 2006 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2006
2016
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 22 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
AIG Prop. Cas. Co. v. High Line Constr. Group LLC
(2×)
Co., Inc. , 7 NY3d 805, 806 [2006]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Oliveira v. Rockaway Vil. Hous. Dev. Fund Corp.
Co. , Inc. , 7 NY3d 805, 806; see Murphy v 80 Pine, LLC , 208 AD3d 492, 497).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Godlewski v. Park Seventy-Ninth Corp.
Co., Inc., 7 NY3d 805, 806 [2006] [“plaintiff’s Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action, based on 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (e) (1) and (2), failed because the electrical pipe or conduit that plaintiff tripped over was an integral part of the construction”]; see also Salazar v Novalex Contr.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Lyons v. New York City Economic Dev. Corp.
Co., Inc., 7 NY3d 805, 806 [2006]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Krzyzanowski v. City of New York
The defense applies to things and conditions that are an integral part of the construction, not just to the specific task a plaintiff may be performing at the time of the accident ( O'Sullivan , 7 NY3d at 805).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Trombley v. DLC Electric, LLC
Co., Inc., 7 NY3d 805, 806 [2006]; accord Verel v Ferguson Elec.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Doto v. Astoria Energy II, LLC
Co., Inc., 7 NY3d 805, 806 [2006]; DeLiso v State of New York, 69 AD3d 786, 786 [2010]) and 12 NYCRR 23-5.1 (f) and (h) (see Klimowicz v Powell Cove Assoc., LLC, 111 AD3d at 607; Allan v DHL Express [USA], Inc., 99 AD3d 828, 831 [2012]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Gonzalez v. Magestic Fine Custom Home
Co., Inc., 7 NY3d 805, 806 [2006]; see Saccenti v City of New York, 45 AD3d 665, 667 [2007]), the plaintiffs deposition testimony, which was submitted by the appellant in support of its motion, raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the electrical cable or wire was merely lying loose on the floor, unattached to any part of the house, and thus, was not, under the circumstances, an integral part of the construction (see Ramsey v Leon D.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Gonzalez v. Magestic Fine Custom Home
Co., Inc., 7 NY3d 805, 806 [2006]; see Saccenti v City of New York, 45 AD3d 665, 667 [2007]), the plaintiffs deposition testimony, which was submitted by the appellant in support of its motion, raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the electrical cable or wire was merely lying loose on the floor, unattached to any part of the house, and thus, was not, under the circumstances, an integral part of the construction (see Ramsey v Leon D.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Cody v. State
Co., Inc., 7 NY3d 805, 806 [2006]; Smith v New York City Hous.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Homola v. Praxair, Inc.
Instead, just as the New York Court of Appeals has concluded that there is no violation of 12 N.Y.C.R.R. § 23-1.7(e)(2) where a pipe over which the plaintiff tripped “was an integral part of the construction,” O’Sullivan v. IDI Const. *401 Co., Inc., 7 N.Y.3d 805 , 822 N.Y.S.2d 745 , 855 N.E.2d 1159, 1159 (2006), here the fence, which was constructed to enclose the radioactive dig and keep it separate from the rest of the work site, is an integral part of the work site, such that we similarly cannot conclude that removing it would be “consistent with the work being performed.” Homol…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
McCormick v. 257 W. Genesee, LLC
Co., Inc., 7 NY3d 805, 806 [2006]; see Verel, 41 AD3d at 1157 ; Adams v Glass Fab, 212 AD2d 972, 973 [1995]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
DeLiso v. State
Co., Inc., 7 NY3d 805, 806 [2006]; Venezia v State of New York, 57 AD3d 522, 523 [2008]; Dubin v S. DiFazio & Sons Constr., Inc., 34 AD3d 626, 627 [2006]; Stafford v Viacom, Inc., 32 AD3d 388, 390 [2006]; Furino v P&O Ports, 24 AD3d 502, 503-504 [2005]; Schroth v New York State Thruway Auth., 300 AD2d 1044 [2002]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Konopczynski v. Adf Constr. Corp.
Co., Inc., 7 NY3d 805, 806 [2006]; see Gist v Central School Dist.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Galazka v. WFP One Liberty Plaza Co., LLC
Co., Inc., 7 NY3d 805, 806 [2006]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Verel v. Ferguson Electric Construction Co.
Co., Inc., 7 NY3d 805, 806 [2006]).
discussed
Cited "see"
Auclair v. Corning Incorporated
See O'Sullivan v. IDI Const. Co., 28 A.D.3d 225, 225 (1st Dep't), aff'd, 7 N.Y.3d 805 (2006) ("[The p]laintiff, while working as the employee of a subcontractor at a construction site, tripped over an electrical pipe protruding two or three feet from a newly laid floor. . . . [W]hile the general contractor's on-site safety manager may have had overall responsibility for the safety of the work done by the subcontractors, such duty to supervise and enforce general safety standards at the work site was insufficient to raise a question of fact as to its negligence").
cited
Cited "see"
Buono v. AvalonBay Communities, Inc.
See O’Sullivan v. IDI Const. Co., 855 N.E.2d 1159, 1159 (N.Y. 2006).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Woodward v. J.T. Magen & Co., Inc.
Transportation Auth., 184 AD3d 534, 534 [1st Dept 2020]; see also O'Sullivan v IDI Const. Co., Inc., 28 AD3d 225 [1st Dept 2006], affd, 7 NY3d 805 [2006]), and plaintiff’s fall was due to a height differential between the floor and inlay.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Sean O’Sullivan, Appellant,
v.
IDI Construction Company, Inc., Respondent, Et Al., Defendant; IDI Construction Company, Inc., Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Teman Electrical Construction, Inc., Et Al., Third-Party Defendants-Respondents
v.
IDI Construction Company, Inc., Respondent, Et Al., Defendant; IDI Construction Company, Inc., Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Teman Electrical Construction, Inc., Et Al., Third-Party Defendants-Respondents
New York Court of Appeals.
Aug 31, 2006.
855 N.E.2d 1159
2006 N.Y. LEXIS 2137
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Lipsitz, Green, Fahringer, Roll, Salisbury & Cambria LLP, Buffalo {John A. Collins of counsel), for appellant., Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP, New York City (Mathew P. Ross of counsel), for respondent and third-party plaintiff-respondent., Newman Fitch Altheim Myers, PC., New York City (Michael H. Zhu of counsel), for Cosner Construction, third-party defendant-respondent., Ahmuty, Demers & McManus, Albertson (Brendan T. Fitzpatrick of counsel), for Teman Electric Construction, Inc., third-party defendant-respondent.
Kaye and Judges G.B. Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo, Read and R.S. Smith Concur.
Cited by 67 opinions | Published
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs. The courts below properly concluded that plaintiffs Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action, based on 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (e) (1) and (2), failed because the electrical pipe or conduit that plaintiff tripped over was an integral part of the construction. Further, plaintiff cannot recover in negligence or pursuant to Labor Law § 200 because no triable issue of fact exists that defendant IDI Construction Company, Inc.’s on-site safety manager “control [led] the activity bringing about the injury to enable it to avoid or correct an unsafe condition” (Russin v Louis N. Picciano & Son, 54 NY2d 311, 317 [1981]) or that IDI maintained an unreasonably dangerous work environment.
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges G.B. Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo, Read and R.S. Smith concur.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.