JEFFREY WEININGER ET AL., RESPONDENTS, v. HAGEDORN & CO., APPELLANT, AMERICAN
INS. MARKETING CORP., ET AL., DEFENDANTS, 225 BROADWAY CO., ET AL.,
RESPONDENTS. (AND A THIRD-PARTY ACTION.)
91 N.Y.2d 958, 695 N.E.2d 709, 672 N.Y.S.2d 840 (1998).
April 30, 1998
1 No. 38
(98 NY Int. 0037)
Decided April 30, 1998
_________________________________________________________________
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before
publication in the New York Reports.
_________________________________________________________________
David B. Hamm, for appellant.
Carol R. Finocchio, for Weininger respondents.
Carolyn B. Stevens, for respondent Alpha Tele-Connect, Inc.
MEMORANDUM:
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs,
judgment for plaintiffs vacated, defendant third- party plaintiff
Hagedorn's third-party complaint reinstated and case remitted to
Supreme Court for a new trial.
Plaintiff, an employee of third-party defendant Alpha Tele-Connect,
Inc., was injured when he fell from a ladder while working at premises
leased by defendant Hagedorn & Company. At the time of his accident,
plaintiff was running computer and telephone cable through the ceiling
from an existing computer room in Hagedorn's office to newly leased
space that would be used as a telecommunications center. This involved
standing on a ladder to access a series of holes punched in the
ceiling and pulling the wiring through "canals" that had been made in
chicken wire in the ceiling.
We agree with both Supreme Court and the Appellate Division that
plaintiff was engaged in "altering" a building or structure within the
meaning of Labor Law § 240(1). Here, at the time of his injury,
plaintiff's work involved "making a significant physical change to the
configuration or composition of the building or structure," not a
simple, routine activity (Joblon v Solow, __ NY2d __ (decided
today) (emphasis in original)). Supreme Court erred, however, in
directing a verdict in favor of plaintiff, at the close of his own
SNIPPETS:
MARKETING CORP., ET AL., DEFENDANTS, 225 BROADWAY CO., ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York
David B. Hamm, for appellant.
Carol R. Finocchio, for Weininger respondents.
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, judgment for plaintiffs
Plaintiff, an employee of third-party defendant Alpha Tele-Connect, Inc., was injured when he
At the time of his accident, plaintiff was running computer and telephone cable through the
We agree with both Supreme Court and the Appellate Division that plaintiff was engaged in
Here, at the time of his injury, plaintiff's work involved "making a significant physical
Supreme Court erred, however, in directing a verdict in favor of plaintiff, at the close of
In the circumstances presented, a reasonable jury could have concluded that plaintiff's
Supreme Court, moreover, erred in directing a verdict for third-party defendant Alpha on
On this record, there are questions of fact as to whether Alpha properly supervised and
Supreme Court's reason for ruling against Hagedorn as a matter of law--that it had disposed
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Wesley concur.
|
