green
Positive treatment
20.1 score
G Cite
Treatment trajectory · 2014 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2014
2020
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Interiano v. Silverstein Galaxy Prop. Owner, LLC
Co., 114 AD3d 424, 427 [1st Dept 2014][Labor Law § 240(1) applied where plaintiff's injuries resulted from fall on float stage, at the same level where he had been working[*2], while struggling to avoid the elevation-related risk of falling into the water]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ladd v. Thor 680 Madison Ave LLC
Under these circumstances, we held that the plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim against the project owner and the general contractor ( see Pipia , 114 AD3d at 426-427). [FN1] The alleged circumstances of plaintiff's injury echo the scenario in Pipia, where the safety device — a float stage — could not protect the plaintiff from the foreseeable circumstance of wave action.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Pastorino v. City of New York
(3×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
The court properly found that federal law does not preempt the Labor Law under the circumstances of this case, which arose from [*2]work that was "essentially local in character" ( Pipia , 114 AD3d at 426; see Cammon v City of New York , 95 NY2d 583, 590 [2000]).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Pastorino v. City of New York
(3×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
The court properly found that federal law does not preempt the Labor Law under the circumstances of this case, which arose from [*2]work that was "essentially local in character" ( Pipia , 114 AD3d at 426; see Cammon v City of New York , 95 NY2d 583, 590 [2000]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Sunun v. Klein
In light of the foregoing, we need not address the Labor Law § 241(6) claim ( see Pipia , 114 AD3d at 427).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Sunun v. Klein
In light of the foregoing, we need not address the Labor Law § 241(6) claim ( see Pipia , 114 AD3d at 427).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Rafael Sanabria
v.
Rafael Sanabria
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Feb 4, 2014.
Published
An appeal having been taken to this Court by the above-named appellant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Bruce Allen, J.), rendered on or about February 24, 2011, said appeal having been argued by counsel for the respective parties, due deliberation having been had thereon, and finding the sentence not excessive, it is unanimously ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same is hereby affirmed. Concur — Tom, J.P, Friedman, DeGrasse, Feinman and Gische, JJ.