section 240 trigger the nondelegable obligations in New York

2019As relevant here, the obligations of Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) apply to "contractors and owners and their agents" (Labor Law § 240[1]; see Labor Law § 241[6]; Ferluckaj v Goldman Sachs & Co. , 12 NY3d 316, 319-320 ; Eliassian v G.F.

2001(Loretto v Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 58 NY2d 143 [1983], rearg denied 59 NY2d 761 [1983].) However, does this “authorized” entry automatically trigger the nondelegable obligations of section 240?

1999Corp., 250 AD2d 550 ).

1999Courts, however, have provided defendants with the recalcitrant worker defense, which “requires a showing that the injured worker refused to use the safety devices that were provided by the owner or employer.” (Stolt v General Foods Corp., 81 NY2d 918, 920 .) Here, plaintiff submitted proof in admissible form that he was engaged in painting a 16-foot-high ceiling while atop a steel canopy covered with wooden planks when one plank gave way, plunging him to the ground, and that the injuries he sustained were proximately caused by defendants’ failure to take necessary steps to comply with their n

1998Since the core objective of section 240 (1) was defeated, defendant is absolutely liable for plaintiffs injuries, and summary judgment on the issue of liability should have been granted, even though the accident itself was not witnessed (Casabianca v Port Auth., 237 AD2d 112 ).

1996The matrimonial Referee further erred in ordering defendant, the noncustodial parent, to pay a pro rata share of child care expenses where, as here, the basic child support obligation reduces the noncustodial parent’s income below the self-support reserve (see, Matter of Cary v Megerell, 219 AD2d 334, 337 ).