TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Fitzgibbons v. Olympia & York Battery Park Co.

Robert T. Fitzgibbons, Jr. v. Olympia & York Battery Park Company

Fitzgibbons v. Olympia & York Battery Park Co., 182 A.D.2d 1069 (1992)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · State Appellate Courts
Decided
April 24, 1992
Citations
182 A.D.2d 1069582 N.Y.S.2d 8701992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6908

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted partial summary judgment to plaintiffs on the issue of liability on the cause of action *1070 brought pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1). That section is designed to protect workers, not only against the risk of falling from elevated heights, but also against the risk of being struck by falling objects (see, Staples v Town of Amherst, 146 AD2d 292 ; Siragusa v State of New York, 117 AD2d 986, 987 , lv denied 68 NY2d 602 ; see also, Rocovich v Consolidated Edison Co., 78 NY2d 509 ; cf., Fox v Jenny Eng’g Corp., 122 AD2d 532 , affd 70 NY2d 761 ). Although no one saw a falling object strike plaintiff Robert T. Fitzgibbons, Jr., the undisputed circumstantial evidence submitted by plaintiffs furnished only one reasonable explanation for plaintiff Robert Fitzgibbons’ injuries: a metal angle, to which a cable and chain hoist were attached, fell and struck him on the head as he was operating the hoist. That evidence established that defendant Olympia & York Battery Park Company failed to meet its obligation under the statute to furnish or to erect hoists, blocks, or pulleys constructed so as to give proper protection to plaintiff Robert Fitzgibbons, who was employed in the construction of a building (see, Labor Law § 240 [1]). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Fudeman, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Denman, P. J., Boomer, Boehm, Fallon and Davis, JJ.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1993: 11994: 21995: 11996: 32000: 119932026peak 1996 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Violette v. Armonk Associates, L.P.823 F. Supp. 224 (S.D.N.Y. 1993)
  2. Tambasco v. Norton Co.207 A.D.2d 618 (1994) · Concurring in Part, Dissenting in Part
  3. Tkach v. City of New York278 A.D.2d 227 (2000)
  4. Conley v. Salt City Energy Venture, L.P.234 A.D.2d 909 (1996)
  5. McCloud v. Rochester Gas & Electric Corp.203 A.D.2d 923 (1994)
  6. Gill v. Samuel Kosoff & Sons, Inc.229 A.D.2d 824 (1996)

Most recent

  1. Tkach v. City of New York278 A.D.2d 227 (2000)
  2. Conley v. Salt City Energy Venture, L.P.234 A.D.2d 909 (1996)
  3. Gill v. Samuel Kosoff & Sons, Inc.229 A.D.2d 824 (1996)
  4. Smith v. Benderson225 A.D.2d 1073 (1996)
  5. Hunger v. Greece Towne Mall221 A.D.2d 949 (1995)
  6. Tambasco v. Norton Co.207 A.D.2d 618 (1994) · Concurring in Part, Dissenting in Part

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
Rocovich v. Consol. Edison Co., 583 N.E.2d 932 (N.Y. 1991) 683
Staples v. Town of Amherst, 146 A.D.2d 292 (1989) 47
Siragusa v. State, 117 A.D.2d 986 (1986) 25

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list