Drago v. New York City Transit Authority
| Decision Date | 06 May 1996 |
| Parties | Ronald DRAGO, et al., Appellants, v. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, et al., Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs-Respondents, Garafalo Electric, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Harry I. Katz, P.C., Fresh Meadows (Paul F. McAloon, P.C., of counsel), for appellants.
Jacobowitz, Garfinkel & Lesman, New York City (Fiedelman & Hoefling [Dawn C. DeSimone] of counsel), for defendants third-party plaintiffs-respondents.
Before BRACKEN, J.P., and O'BRIEN, JOY and FLORIO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bernstein, J.), dated May 1, 1995, which denied their motion for summary judgment.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff Ronald Drago (hereinafter the injured plaintiff) suffered injuries when he fell while trying to run away from an exploding electric cable in a subway tunnel. The injured plaintiff had been working for a general contractor hired by the defendant New York City Transit Authority (hereinafter the Transit Authority) to replace the cable which exploded. At the time of the accident, the plaintiff was attaching a new replacement cable, which was attached to the same steel column that the old cable was attached to.
Before the injured plaintiff began work, Arnold Nelson, the assistant electrical engineer for the Transit Authority, observed the old cable hanging overhead from the column. Knowing that the old cable was live and could explode, Nelson instructed the injured plaintiff's supervisor to properly support the cable. The injured plaintiff also noticed the dangerous condition and informed his general foreman. No action was taken to properly support the cable, and the injured plaintiff continued his work.
The plaintiffs contend that the Supreme Court should have granted their motion for summary judgment on their causes of action alleged under Labor Law §§ 200 and 241(6). We reject this contention.
A violation of Labor Law §§ 200 or 241(6) does not establish negligence as a matter of law (see, Long v. Forest-Fehlhaber, 55 N.Y.2d 154, 448 N.Y.S.2d 132, 433 N.E.2d 115). Comparative negligence is a viable defense to a cause of action asserted under either Labor Law §§ 200 or 241(6). The injured plaintiff's knowing decision to continue with the installation of the new cable only a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Albericci v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J.
..."questions of fact as to the plaintiff's comparative negligence for purposes of Labor Law § 241(6)."]; Drago v. New York City Tr. Auth., 227 A.D.2d 372, 373, 642 N.Y.S.2d 83 [2d Dept.1996] ["The injured plaintiff's knowing decision to continue with the installation of the new cable only a f......
-
Irwin v. St. Joseph's Intercommunity Hosp.
...motion for partial summary judgment on Labor Law § 241(6) liability, therefore, was properly denied (see, Drago v. New York City Tr. Auth., 227 A.D.2d 372, 373, 642 N.Y.S.2d 83; Schmeer v. County of Monroe, supra; Larabee v. Triangle Steel, 86 A.D.2d 289, 290-291, 451 N.Y.S.2d To the extent......
-
Yaucan v. Hawthorne Vill., LLC
...falling (see Giordano v. Tishman Constr. Corp., 152 A.D.3d 470, 471, 59 N.Y.S.3d 28 ; 155 A.D.3d 927 Drago v. New York City Tr. Auth., 227 A.D.2d 372, 373, 642 N.Y.S.2d 83 ). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of their cross motion which was for summary judgment dism......
-
Posillico v. Laquila Const., Inc.
...448 N.Y.S.2d 132, 433 N.E.2d 115; Irwin v. St. Joseph's Intercommunity Hosp., 236 A.D.2d 123, 665 N.Y.S.2d 773; Drago v. New York City Tr. Auth., 227 A.D.2d 372, 642 N.Y.S.2d 83), precluding summary ...