Dismissal of the complaint was proper since plaintiff's work, which consisted of disconnecting power cables from the third rail to allow a signal construction project to proceed safely, was a separate phase of work, distinct from any construction and thus, not a covered activity under Labor Law § 241 (6) (see Nagel v D & R Realty Corp.,
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.
BARNES v. CITY OF NEW YORK
3358, 114312/06.
77 A.D.3d 481 (2010)
908 N.Y.S.2d 579
GEORGE BARNES et al., Appellants, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondent.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
Decided October 14, 2010.
Decided October 14, 2010.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court 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.
