LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

ANTHONY ROBERTS et al. v GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CourtCode: AP, CourtName: NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS, Plaintiff: ANTHONY ROBERTS et al., State: NEW YORK, UniqueCaseRef: NE>AP>I02_0029, Appellate, Labor Law, Appellate Division, Judgement, General Electric Company, Memorandum, Review, Pursuant, Asbestos, Liability, Supreme Court, Respondents, Third-party, Costs, Securing, Judges, Statute, Narducci, Manhasset Bay Assoc, Ny2d, Basis, Judges Smith, Levine, Ciparick, Wesley, Rosenblatt, Graffeo Concur, Chief Judge Kaye , ContentID: 120251766

Case Documents
1   OPINION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 125675
2 pages
HTML
Total Documents: 1 document , 2 pages
Price: $ 19.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . OPINION

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
LABOR LAW
APPELLATE DIVISION
JUDGEMENT
PLAINTIFF
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
DEFENDANT
MEMORANDUM
REVIEW
PURSUANT
ASBESTOS
LIABILITY
SUPREME COURT
RESPONDENTS
THIRD-PARTY
COSTS
SECURING
JUDGES
STATUTE
NARDUCCI
MANHASSET BAY ASSOC
NY2D
BASIS
JUDGES SMITH
LEVINE
CIPARICK
WESLEY
ROSENBLATT
GRAFFEO CONCUR
CHIEF JUDGE KAYE


   5601d No. 25
   Anthony Roberts et al.,
   Respondents,
   v.
   General Electric Company,
   Appellant, et al.,
   Defendant, UE&C Catalytic, a Division of Raytheon Constructors Inc.,
   Third-Party Appellant, et al., Third-Party Defendant.
     _________________________________________________________________

   2002 NY Int. 29

   March 19, 2002

   This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before
   publication in the New York Reports.

   Peter S. Marlette, for appellants.
   Lawrence D. Lissauer, for respondents.
     _________________________________________________________________
     _________________________________________________________________

   MEMORANDUM:

   The judgment appealed from and the order of the Appellate Division
   brought up for review should be reversed, with costs, and the Labor
   Law § 240(1) cause of action dismissed.

   This is an action brought pursuant to Labor Law § 240(1).
   Plaintiff, an employee of an asbestos removal company, was injured
   when a piece of asbestos, which had been cut and deliberately dropped
   from a chemical tank approximately 12 feet above ground, fell on him.
   Plaintiff and his wife brought this action against General Electric
   Company, the owner of the premises, alleging, among other things,
   absolute liability under section 240(1) of the Labor Law. Supreme
   Court granted partial summary judgment to plaintiffs as to liability
   on the section 240(1) cause of action. The Appellate Division
   affirmed, with two justices dissenting. Defendant now appeals as of
   right to this Court pursuant to CPLR 5601(d) from the ensuing
   Supreme Court judgment awarding damages to bring up for review the
   prior Appellate Division order.

   Here, the asbestos "that fell on plaintiff was not a material being
   hoisted or a load that required securing for the purposes of the
   undertaking at the time it fell, and thus Labor Law § 240(1) does
   not apply. * * * * This was not a situation where a hoisting or
SNIPPETS:
  • Anthony Roberts et al., Respondents, v.
  • General Electric Company, Appellant, et al., Defendant, UE&C Catalytic, a Division of
  • This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York
  • The judgment appealed from and the order of the Appellate Division brought up for review
  • Plaintiff, an employee of an asbestos removal company, was injured when a piece of asbestos,
  • Plaintiff and his wife brought this action against General Electric Company, the owner of the
  • Defendant now appeals as of right to this Court pursuant to CPLR 5601from the ensuing Supreme
  • Here, the asbestos "that fell on plaintiff was not a material being hoisted or a load that
  • * * * * This was not a situation where a hoisting or securing device of the kind enumerated
  • there was no basis for liability pursuant to Labor Law § 1).
  • Judges Smith, Levine, Ciparick, Wesley, Rosenblatt and Graffeo concur.
  • Chief Judge Kaye took no part.
  •    |