RONALD C. SMITH ET AL., RESPONDENTS, v. NEW YORK STATE ELECTRIC & GAS
CORPORATION, APPELLANT, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
82 N.Y.2d 781, 624 N.E.2d 677, 604 N.Y.S.2d 540 (1993).
October 14, 1993
3 No. 285 SSM 40 (1993 NY Int. 197)
Decided October 14, 1993
_________________________________________________________________
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before
publication in the New York Reports.
Submitted by Kathleen C. Sassani, for Appellant.
Submitted by Alfred Paniccia, Jr., for Respondents.
_________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM:
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs,
defendant's cross motion for partial summary judgment dismissing
plaintiffs' Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action granted, and the
certified question answered in the affirmative.
Plaintiff was injured while dismantling a coal conveyer system located
in a subterranean concrete vault. The dismantled machinery was removed
from the underground work area by a crane situated at ground level
with its cable lowered through an opening in the vault's ceiling. A
200 pound metal tension ball attached to the cable allowed the
dismantled machinery to be dragged along the concrete floor until it
could be hoisted to ground level. Plaintiff's injury occurred when
equipment snagged on the vault floor's uneven surface and the crane
operator, unaware of the situation, continued to exert tension on the
cable until it snapped, propelling the tension ball against plaintiff.
The Appellate Division, with one justice dissenting, modified an order
of Supreme Court by reversing so much thereof as granted defendant's
cross motion for partial summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs' Labor
Law § 240(1) cause of action. That court concluded that plaintiffs'
section 240(1) claim was viable because the work activity plaintiff
was engaged in exposed him to risks associated with elevation
differentials. Based on our holdings in Rocovich v Consolidated
Edison Co. (78 NY2d 509) and Ross v Curtis-Palmer (81 NY2d 494), we
disagree and hold that plaintiff's injury did not result from an
elevation-related hazard.
SNIPPETS:
CORPORATION, APPELLANT, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, defendant's cross motion
The dismantled machinery was removed from the underground work area by a crane situated at
A 200 pound metal tension ball attached to the cable allowed the dismantled machinery to be
Plaintiff's injury occurred when equipment snagged on the vault floor's uneven surface and
The Appellate Division, with one justice dissenting, modified an order of Supreme Court by
That court concluded that plaintiffs' section 240claim was viable because the work activity
Based on our holdings in Rocovich v Consolidated Edison Co. (78 NY2d 509) and Ross v
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules, order reversed, with costs,
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Hancock, Bellacosa, Smith and Levine concur.
|
