Supreme Court properly granted plaintiff summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim because plaintiff has shown that he fell while walking along an elevated retaining wall to access a job site. This activity presents the type of elevation related risk contemplated by the statute, which could have been mitigated by providing the type of protective devices listed in section 240(1) (see Auriemma v Biltmore Theatre, LLC,
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.
HOVORKA v. APPLIED PRODS. CO., INC.
199 A.D.3d 520 (2021)
154 N.Y.S.3d 435
2021 NY Slip Op 06443
Shane Hovorka, Respondent, v. Applied Products Company, Inc., et al., Appellants.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
Decided November 18, 2021.
Decided November 18, 2021.
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP, New York ( Judy C. Selmeci of counsel), for appellants.
Scaffidi & Associates, New York ( James F. Scaffidi of counsel), for respondent.
Concur—Webber, J.P., Kern, González, Mendez, Shulman, JJ.
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.