Source: http://www.frenchcasey.com/blog/archive/2014/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 21:06:11+00:00

Document:
Women Rainmakers -- Roadmap to Success is a DRI publication by women, providing practical advice for career and business development skills in today's changing legal enviornment.
Following an action to recover damages for personal injuries, Judge J. Schmidt denied plaintiff’s action in an order dated February 5, 2013. Pursuant to plaintiff’s appeal, the Second Department affirmed the denial of summary judgment to plaintiff on his claim against defendant Iracane alleging common-law negligence and a violation of Labor Law § 200. The court affirmed the lower court’s order.
Court finds 14-16 inch hole in floor is not of an elevation-related injury and does not fall within New York State Labor Law § 240(1)’s ambit.
The United States District Court Eastern District of New York has recently held that a worker’s fall through a relatively small hole that happens to be at an elevation is “the type of ordinary and usual peril a worker is commonly exposed to at a construction site, “and does not fall within §240(1).Villalba v. Robo-Breaking Co., Inc. United States District Court, ED New York (Only Westlaw Citation is currently available, 2014 WL4829280.
Following an action to recover damages for personal injuries, Judge J. Farneti denied plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability in an order dated March 6, 2013. Pursuant to plaintiff’s appeal, the Second Department affirmed the denial of summary judgment to plaintiff on his claim against defendant Farr alleging violations of Labor Law §240(1) and 241(6). The court affirmed the lower court’s order.
Following an action to recover damages for personal injuries, Judge J. Solomon denied plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability in an order dated August 8, 2013. Pursuant to plaintiff’s appeal, the Appellate Court affirmed the denial of granting summary judgment to plaintiff on his claim against defendant Calafiore. The court reversed the lower court’s order and granted plaintiff summary judgment on use of liability claim against the three (3) Jairath defendants.
Following a trial in Queens and despite plaintiff’s Labor Law 240(1) claims, a jury returned a liability verdict in favor of the defense. The trial court subsequently denied plaintiff’s CPLR 4401 motion seeking judgment on the liability issue. On appeal, the Second Department reversed the Lower Court, found for plaintiff on his Labor Law 240(1) claim, and remitted to the trial court for a damages trial.
Susan Romano is a contributing author to Women Rainmakers—Roadmap to Success, a publication by the national organization, DRI(Defense Research Institute).
Pinot v. 2248 Church Ave, LLC and Church Ave Development, LLC.
The New York Supreme Court, Queens County, ruled on the consolidated motions and cross motions, deciding that plaintiff failed to demonstrate a triable issue of fact and therefore summary judgment was warranted on the Section 240(1) cause of action.
The issue of ownership under the Labor Law, as it relates to condominiums, has not received much attention from the Courts. However, as current case law stands, Courts have held that a condominium association, its board of managers and its property manager are not considered “owners” or “agents” of owners under the Labor Law.

References: § 200
 § 240
 §240
 v. 
 §240
 v.