green
Positive treatment
30.8 score
Treatment trajectory · 2008 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2008
2017
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 26 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Singh v. Hariohm Realty LLC
Ladder Co. , 10 NY3d 902, 904 (2008); see also Broggy v. Rockefeller Group, Inc ., 8 NY3d 675, 681 (2007).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hoyos v. NY-1095 Avenue of the Americas, LLC
(2×)
The majority ignores the most fundamental principle applicable to these cases which is "the fact that a worker falls at a construction site, in itself, does not establish a violation of Labor Law § 240(1)" ( O'Brien v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J. , 29 NY3d 27, 33 [2017], citing Berg v Albany Ladder Co., Inc. , 10 NY3d 902, 904 [2008]; Toefer at 407 ; Blake v Neighborhood Hous.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Thomas J. O'Brien v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey
(2×)
Berg v Albany Ladder Co., Inc., 10 NY3d 902, 904 [2008]; Toefer v Long Is.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Karwowski v. Grolier Club of City of N.Y.
To establish liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1), a plaintiff must show that the statute was violated, and that the violation was a proximate cause of his or her injuries (see Berg v Albany Ladder Co., Inc., 10 NY3d 902, 904 [2008]; Blake v Neighborhood Hous.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Myiow v. City of New York
(2×)
Tom, J.R, dissents in a memorandum as follows: Because plaintiff failed to “adduce proof sufficient to create a question of fact regarding whether his fall resulted from the lack of a safety device,” or identify any safety device that could have prevented the accident, his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim should be dismissed (Berg v Albany Ladder Co., Inc., 10 NY3d 902, 904 [2008]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Somereve v. Plaza Construction Corp.
(2×)
"Among other prerequisites, a worker must demonstrate the existence of an elevation-related hazard contemplated by the statute and a failure to provide the worker with an adequate safety device" ( Berg v Albany Ladder Co., Inc. , 10 NY3d 902, 904 [2008]), as well as a nexus between the violation and the resulting injury ( Blake v Neighborhood Hous.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Nazario v. 222 Broadway, LLC
(2×)
Indeed, to recover under the statute, "a worker must demonstrate the existence of an elevation-related hazard contemplated by the statute and a failure to provide the worker with an adequate safety device" ( Berg v Albany Ladder Co., Inc. , 10 NY3d 902, 904 [2008]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Marc A. Nicometi v. The Vineyards of Fredonia, LLC / Scott Pfohl v. Western New York Plumbing-Ellicott Plumbing and Remodeling Co.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Consequently, the protections of Labor Law § 240 (1) "do not encompass any and all perils that may be connected in some tangential way with the effects of gravity" (Ross, 81 NY2d at 501 ; see Ortiz v Varsity Holdings, LLC, 18 NY3d 335, 339 [2011]; Berg v Albany Ladder Co., Inc., 10 NY3d 902, 904 [2008]; Narducci v Manhasset Bay Assoc., 96 NY2d 259, 267 [2001]).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Marc A. Nicometi v. The Vineyards of Fredonia, LLC / Scott Pfohl v. Western New York Plumbing-Ellicott Plumbing and Remodeling Co.
(4×)
also: Cited "see"
Consequently, the protections of Labor Law § 240 (1) “do not encompass any and all perils that may be connected in some tangential way with the effects of gravity” (Ross, 81 NY2d at 501 ; see Ortiz v Varsity Holdings, LLC, 18 NY3d 335, 339 [2011]; Berg v Albany Ladder Co., Inc., 10 NY3d 902, 904 [2008]; Narducci v Manhasset Bay Assoc., 96 NY2d 259, 267 [2001]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Keenan v. Simon Property Group, Inc.
Labor Law § 240 (1) imposes liability on contractors and owners for the existence of certain elevation-related hazards and the failure to provide an adequate safety device of the kind enumerated in the statute (see Berg v Albany Ladder Co., Inc., 10 NY3d 902, 904 [2008]; Cahill v Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth., 4 NY3d 35, 39 [2004]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Keenan v. Simon Property Group, Inc.
Labor Law § 240 (1) imposes liability on contractors and owners for the existence of certain elevation-related hazards and the failure to provide an adequate safety device of the kind enumerated in the statute (see Berg v Albany Ladder Co., Inc., 10 NY3d 902, 904 [2008]; Cahill v Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth., 4 NY3d 35, 39 [2004]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Nacewicz v. Roman Catholic Church of the Holy Cross
Labor Law § 240 (1) imposes liability on contractors and owners for the existence of certain elevation-related hazards and the failure to provide an adequate safety device of the kind enumerated in the statute (see Berg v Albany Ladder Co., Inc., 10 NY3d 902, 904 [2008]; Cahill v Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth., 4 NY3d 35, 39 [2004]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Nacewicz v. Roman Catholic Church of the Holy Cross
Labor Law § 240 (1) imposes liability on contractors and owners for the existence of certain elevation-related hazards and the failure to provide an adequate safety device of the kind enumerated in the statute (see Berg v Albany Ladder Co., Inc., 10 NY3d 902, 904 [2008]; Cahill v Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth., 4 NY3d 35, 39 [2004]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Allan v. DHL Express (USA), Inc.
To prevail on a Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action, a plaintiff must establish that the statute was violated and that the violation was a proximate cause of his or her injuries (see Berg v Albany Ladder Co., Inc., 10 NY3d 902, 904 [2008]; Blake v Neighborhood Hous.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Allan v. DHL Express (USA), Inc.
To prevail on a Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action, a plaintiff must establish that the statute was violated and that the violation was a proximate cause of his or her injuries (see Berg v Albany Ladder Co., Inc., 10 NY3d 902, 904 [2008]; Blake v Neighborhood Hous.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
DeRosa v. Bovis Lend Lease LMB, Inc.
Plaintiff failed to establish that the circumstances, at the time of his injury, warranted the protection of the type of safety equipment enumerated in section 240 (1) (see Berg v Albany Ladder Co., Inc., 10 NY3d 902, 904 [2008]; compare D'Alto v 22-24 129th St., LLC, 76 AD3d 503 , 506 [2010]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
DeRosa v. Bovis Lend Lease LMB, Inc.
Plaintiff failed to establish that the circumstances, at the time of his injury, warranted the protection of the type of safety equipment enumerated in section 240 (1) (see Berg v Albany Ladder Co., Inc., 10 NY3d 902, 904 [2008]; compare D'Alto v 22-24 129th St., LLC, 76 AD3d 503 , 506 [2010]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hart v. Commack Hotel, LLC
The plaintiff failed to establish his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1) because his own submissions showed the existence of triable issues of fact as to whether adequate safety devices were readily avail able and, if so, whether he was aware that he should use them while working on the roof (see Berg v Albany Ladder Co., Inc., 10 NY3d 902, 904 [2008]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Fontaine v. Juniper Associates
(Berg v Albany Ladder Co., Inc., 10 NY3d 902, 904 [2008]; Narducci v Manhasset Bay Assoc., 96 NY2d 259, 267-268 [2001]; Francis v Foremost Contr.
discussed
Cited "see"
Hensel v. Aviator FSC, Inc.
Corp. , 50 AD3d 373, 376 ). "[L]iability is contingent upon the existence of a hazard contemplated in section 240(1) and the failure to use, or the inadequacy of, a safety device of the kind enumerated therein" ( Narducci v Manhasset Bay Assoc. , 96 NY2d 259, 267 ; see Berg v Albany Ladder Co., Inc. , 10 NY3d 902, 904 ).
discussed
Cited "see"
Vicuna v. Vista Woods, LLC
"To prevail on a Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action, a plaintiff must establish that the statute was violated and that the violation was a proximate cause of his or her injuries" ( Allan v DHL Express [USA], Inc. , 99 AD3d 828, 833 ; see Berg v Albany Ladder Co., Inc. , 10 NY3d 902, 904 ; Alvarez v Vingsan L.P. , 150 AD3d at 1179 ; Lopez-Dones v 601 W.
discussed
Cited "see"
Alvarez v. Vingsan Ltd. Partnership
“To prevail on a Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action, a plaintiff must establish that the statute was violated and that the violation was a proximate cause of his or her injuries” (Allan v DHL Express [USA], Inc., 99 AD3d 828, 833 [2012]; see Berg v Albany Ladder Co., Inc., 10 NY3d 902, 904 [2008]; Lopez-Dones v 601 W.
discussed
Cited "see"
Escobar v. Safi
“To prevail on a Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action, a plaintiff must establish that the statute was violated and that the violation was a proximate cause of his or her injuries” (Allan v DHL Express [USA], Inc., 99 AD3d 828, 833 [2012]; see Berg v Albany Ladder Co., Inc., 10 NY3d 902, 904 [2008]; Blake v Neighborhood Hous.
cited
Cited "see"
Gaspar v. Pace University
Assoc., LLC, 98 AD3d 476 , 479 [2012]; see Berg v Albany Ladder Co., Inc., 10 NY3d 902, 904 [2008]; Robinson v East Med.
cited
Cited "see"
Gaspar v. Pace University
Assoc., LLC, 98 AD3d 476 , 479 [2012]; see Berg v Albany Ladder Co., Inc., 10 NY3d 902, 904 [2008]; Robinson v East Med.
discussed
Cited "see"
Robinson v. Goldman Sachs Headquarters, LLC
“In order to prevail on a Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action, [a] plaintiff must establish that the statute was violated and that the violation was a proximate cause of his [or her] injuries” (Delahaye v Saint Anns School, 40 AD3d 679, 682 [2007]; see Berg v Albany Ladder Co., Inc., 10 NY3d 902, 904 [2008]; Robinson v East Med.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
FREDERICK BERG, Appellant,
v.
ALBANY LADDER COMPANY, INC., Defendant, and MARKAN ASSOCIATES, LLC, et al., Respondents. CAPITAL FRAMING AND CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent; STONE BRIDGE IRON & STEEL et al., Third-Party Defendants-Respondents.
v.
ALBANY LADDER COMPANY, INC., Defendant, and MARKAN ASSOCIATES, LLC, et al., Respondents. CAPITAL FRAMING AND CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent; STONE BRIDGE IRON & STEEL et al., Third-Party Defendants-Respondents.
New York Court of Appeals.
Jun 12, 2008.
Kaye and Judges Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones Concur Judge Ciparick Taking No Part.
Cited by 50 opinions | Published
[*903] Capasso & Massaroni LLP, Schenectady (John R. Seebold of counsel), for appellant.
Ahmuty, Demers & McManus, Albertson (Brendan T. Fitzpatrick of counsel), for respondents and third-party plaintiff-respondent.
Hanlon, Veloce & Wilkinson, Albany (Christine D'Addio Hanlon of counsel), for Stone Bridge Iron & Steel, third-party defendant-respondent.
Law Offices of Epstein & Donnelly, Latham (Jeffrey T. Culkin of counsel), for Fast Trek Steel, Inc., third-party defendant-respondent.
Chief Judge KAYE and Judges GRAFFEO, READ, SMITH, PIGOTT and JONES concur; Judge CIPARICK taking no part.
OPINION OF THE COURT
MEMORANDUM.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
In October 2000, plaintiff Frederick Berg was working on a flatbed truck unloading steel trusses with the assistance of a forklift operated by a coworker. While plaintiff was standing atop several bundles of trusses about 10 feet off the ground, another bundle became unstable and began to roll over on top of him. Rather than being crushed by the trusses, plaintiff climbed into the bundle as it toppled to the ground and he suffered physical injuries. Among other causes of action, plaintiff alleged a "falling worker" claim under Labor Law § 240 (1). Supreme[*904] Court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and the Appellate Division affirmed.
As we have made clear, the protections of Labor Law § 240 (1) do not apply to every worker who falls and is injured at a construction site (see e.g. Narducci v Manhasset Bay Assoc., 96 NY2d 259, 267 [2001]). Among other prerequisites, a worker must demonstrate the existence of an elevation-related hazard contemplated by the statute and a failure to provide the worker with an adequate safety device (see Broggy v Rockefeller Group, Inc., 8 NY3d 675, 681 [2007]; Narducci, 96 NY2d at 267; Rocovich v Consolidated Edison Co., 78 NY2d 509, 514 [1991]). Although plaintiff asserts that the height at which he worked created an elevation-related risk (cf. Toefer v Long Is. R.R., 4 NY3d 399, 408-409 [2005]), he failed to adduce proof sufficient to create a question of fact regarding whether his fall resulted from the lack of a safety device. Consequently, the courts below correctly granted summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action.
Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.