Ward v. Cedar Key Assocs., L.P., 13 A.D.3d 1098 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004). · Go Syfert
Search
Ward v. Cedar Key Assocs., L.P., 13 A.D.3d 1098 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
25 citation events (25 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: DeGraff v. Colontonio (nyappdiv, 2022-02-17)
Treatment trajectory · 2005 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2005 2015 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) DeGraff v. Colontonio
N.Y. App. Div. · 2022 · confidence medium
Even when viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to defendant and according him every favorable inference, it is beyond dispute that the lull was not an adequate safety device for the elevated work being performed by plaintiff at the time of his fall ( see Kuhn v Camelot Assn., Inc. , 82 AD3d 1704, 1705 [2011]; Ward v Cedar Key Assoc., L.P. , 13 AD3d 1098, 1098 [2004]; Kash v McCann Real Equities Devs. , 279 AD2d 432, 432 [2001]; Boice v Jegarmont Realty Corp. , 204 AD2d 674, 675 [1994]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Wolf v. Ledcor Constr. Inc.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2019 · confidence medium
Co., Inc. , 134 AD3d 1405 , 1407 [4th Dept 2015]; Fazekas v Time Warner Cable, Inc. , 132 AD3d 1401, 1403 [4th Dept 2015]; Bernard v Town of Lysander , 124 AD3d 1289, 1290 [4th Dept 2015]; Custer v Jordan , 107 AD3d 1555, 1558 [4th Dept 2013]; Miles v Great Lakes Cheese of N.Y., Inc. , 103 AD3d 1165 , 1167 [4th Dept 2013]; Kin v State of New York , 101 AD3d 1606, 1607 [4th Dept 2012]; Kirbis v LPCiminelli, Inc. , 90 AD3d 1581, 1582 [4th Dept 2011]; Dean v City of Utica , 75 AD3d 1130, 1131 [4th Dept 2010]; Chacon-Chavez v City of Rochester , 72 AD3d 1636, 1636 [4th Dept 2010]; Arnold v Baldwin…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Fronce v. Port Byron Telephone Co.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
Plaintiff further “established the requisite causal link between his injuries and the violation of defendants’ nondelegable duty to ensure that the [aerial bucket] was ‘so . . . placed and operated as to give proper protection’ to plaintiff” (Ward v Cedar Key Assoc., L.P., 13 AD3d 1098, 1098 [2004]; see Thome v Benchmark Main Tr.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Fronce v. Port Byron Telephone Co.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
Plaintiff further “established the requisite causal link between his injuries and the violation of defendants’ nondelegable duty to ensure that the [aerial bucket] was ‘so . . . placed and operated as to give proper protection’ to plaintiff” (Ward v Cedar Key Assoc., L.P., 13 AD3d 1098, 1098 [2004]; see Thome v Benchmark Main Tr.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Nicometi v. Vineyards of Fredonia, LLC
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Even assuming, arguendo, that plaintiff was provided with proper protection, we further conclude that his actions cannot be the sole proximate cause of the accident because under the circumstances of this case the stilts were not “ ‘so . . . placed ... as to give proper protection’ to plaintiff’ (Ward v Cedar Key Assoc., L.P., 13 AD3d 1098, 1098 [2004]; see Blake, 1 NY3d at 290 ).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Nicometi v. Vineyards of Fredonia, LLC
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Even assuming, arguendo, that plaintiff was provided with proper protection, we further conclude that his actions cannot be the sole proximate cause of the accident because under the circumstances of this case the stilts were not “ ‘so . . . placed ... as to give proper protection’ to plaintiff’ (Ward v Cedar Key Assoc., L.P., 13 AD3d 1098, 1098 [2004]; see Blake, 1 NY3d at 290 ).
discussed Cited "see" Lamica v. Siskar
N.Y. App. Div. · 2025 · signal: see · confidence high
Co. , 198 AD2d 891, 891 [4th Dept 1993]; see generally Ward v Cedar Key Assoc. , L.P. , 13 AD3d 1098 , 1098 [4th Dept 2004]). " 'Generally, the issue of whether a particular safety device provided proper protection is a question of fact for the jury' " ( Welsch v Maimonides Med.
discussed Cited "see" Lamica v. Siskar
N.Y. App. Div. · 2025 · signal: see · confidence high
Co. , 198 AD2d 891, 891 [4th Dept 1993]; see generally Ward v Cedar Key Assoc. , L.P. , 13 AD3d 1098 , 1098 [4th Dept 2004]). " 'Generally, the issue of whether a particular safety device provided proper protection is a question of fact for the jury' " ( Welsch v Maimonides Med.
discussed Cited "see" Dean v. City of Utica
N.Y. App. Div. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
The mere fact that the scissor lift tipped over upon being struck by the garage door is sufficient to establish as a matter of law that the scissor lift was not so “placed . . . as to give proper protection” to plaintiff (id.; see Ward v Cedar Key Assoc., L.P., 13 AD3d 1098 [2004]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Jeffrey Ward
v.
Cedar Key Associates, L.P.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Dec 30, 2004.
13 A.D.3d 1098
Cited by 16 opinions  |  Published

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Kevin M. Dillon, J.), entered August 15, 2003. The order granted plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment on liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1) in a personal injury action.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum:

Plaintiff commenced this action seeking to recover damages for injuries sustained when a scissor lift in which he was working at a construction site tipped and fell. Supreme Court properly granted plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). Plaintiff met his initial burden on the motion by demonstrating that he was engaged in an activity included in the statute, the erection of a building or structure, and that his accident involved an elevation-related hazard that the statute was intended to protect against (see generally Melber v 6333 Main St., 91 NY2d 759, 762-763 [1998]). Plaintiff further established the requisite causal link between his injuries and the violation of defendants’ nondelegable duty to ensure that the scissor lift was “so constructed, placed and operated as to give proper protection” to plaintiff (Labor Law § 240 [1]; see Melber, 91 NY2d at 762; Felker v Corning Inc., 90 NY2d 219, 224 [1997]; Zimmer v Chemung County Performing Arts, 65 NY2d 513, 520 [1985], rearg denied 65 NY2d 1054 [1985]). Defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Defendants’ contention that the scissor lift provided to plaintiff was an adequate safety device lacks merit; the fact that the scissor lift tipped establishes that it was not so “placed . . . as to give proper protection” to plaintiff (§ 240 [1]; see Petit v Board of Educ. of W. Genesee School Dist., 307 AD2d 749, 749-750 [2003]; Adderly v ADF Constr. Corp., 273 AD2d 795 [2000]). Contrary to their further contention, defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact whether the conduct of plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his injuries (see Panek v County of Albany, 99 NY2d 452, 458 [2003]; Villeneuve v State of New York, 274 AD2d 958 [2000]; Adderly, 273 AD2d at 795; cf. Weininger v Hagedorn & Co., 91 NY2d 958, 960 [1998], rearg denied 92 NY2d 875 [1998]). Present—Green, J.P., Gorski, Martoche, Lawton and Hayes, JJ.