The motion court properly determined that plaintiff construction worker was not a recalcitrant worker for failing to wear a hard hat at the time a piece of metal fell from above and struck him in the head. A hard hat is not the type of safety device enumerated in Labor Law § 240 (1) to be constructed, placed and operated, so as to give proper protection from extraordinary elevation-related risks to a construction worker (see, Rosa v R.H. Macy Co.,
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Let's get started
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
SINGH v. 49 EAST 96 REALTY CORP.
291 A.D.2d 216 (2002)
737 N.Y.S.2d 345
SAWARN SINGH, Respondent, v. 49 EAST 96 REALTY CORP., Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent. M.S.T. WATERPROOFING RESTORATION, INC., Third-Party Defendant-Appellant.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
Decided February 5, 2002.
Decided February 5, 2002.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department.
Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.
Cited Cases
- No Cases Found
Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.
