Plaintiffs' cross motion was opposed and denied upon the singular ground that there was a question of fact as to whether plaintiff at the time of his accident was acting in a capacity entitling him to the protection of Labor Law § 240 (1). Our review of the record, however, discloses that defendants essentially admitted in their answer that on the occasion in question plaintiff was in fact performing an inspection integral to the progress of an ongoing construction project...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
