Meslin v. New York Post
Decision Date | 27 June 2006 |
Docket Number | 8914. |
Parties | THOMAS J. MESLIN et al., Appellants, v. THE NEW YORK POST, Defendant, and McCLIER CORPORATION, Respondent. McCLIER CORPORATION et al., Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ARCHITECTURAL ROOFING AND SIDING, INC., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent, et al., Third-Party Defendants. McCLIER CORPORATION et al., Second Third-Party Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. GOODISON METAL COMPANY et al., Second Third-Party Defendants-Appellants, et al., Second Third-Party Defendants. (And Another Action.) |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Plaintiff Thomas Meslin was allegedly injured at a construction site when he stepped off a scaffold, which was at ground level, onto a pipe, which then rolled and caused him to fall into a three-foot hole. Injuries sustained under these circumstances are not compensable under Labor Law § 240 (1), since the accident was not attributable to the kind of extraordinary elevation-related risk contemplated by the statute (see Nieves v Five Boro A.C. & Refrig. Corp., 93 NY2d 914 [1999]; Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 NY2d 494, 500-501 [1993]).
The alleged violation of Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-1.5, a regulation that sets only general safety standards, would not constitute a basis for a claim under Labor Law § 241 (6). The open area near the scaffold upon which Meslin had been working was not a "passageway" or walkway covered by section 23-1.7 (e) (1) of the Code (see Dalanna v City of New York, 308 AD2d 400 [2003]), nor was the spot where his fall occurred a "working area" within the meaning of section 23-1.7 (e) (2) (see Muscarella v Herbert Constr. Co., 265 AD2d 264 [1999]).
As to the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, defendants established that they did not directly supervise or control the work of the subcontractors (see Vasiliades v Lehrer McGovern & Bovis, 3 AD3d 400, 401-402 [2004]), and had no notice of any specific dangerous conditions (see...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Salazar v. Novalex Contracting Corp.
...to "the usual and ordinary dangers at a construction site"] [citation and internal quotations marks omitted]; Meslin v. New York Post, 30 A.D.3d 309, 310, 817 N.Y.S.2d 279 [2006] [dismissing Labor Law § 240(1) claim where "the accident was not attributable to the kind of extraordinary eleva......
-
Caravello v. City of New York
..."passageway, walkway and/or working area" as contemplated by Section 23-1.7 [d], [e][1] (Meslin v. New York Post, 30 A.D. 3dPage 6 309, 817 N.Y.S. 2d 279 [N.Y.A.D. 1st Dept., 2006] and Dalanna v. City of New York, 308 A.D. 2d 400, 764 N.Y.S. 2d 429 [N.Y.A.D. 1st Dept., 2003]). Matthew Carav......
-
Carey v. Five Bros., Inc.
...the ambit of Labor Law § 240(1) ( see Coleman v. Crumb Rubber Mfrs., 92 A.D.3d 1128, 1128–1129, 940 N.Y.S.2d 170;Meslin v. New York Post, 30 A.D.3d 309, 310, 817 N.Y.S.2d 279;Plotnick v. Wok's Kitchen, Inc., 21 A.D.3d 358, 359, 800 N.Y.S.2d 37;Aquilino v. E.W. Howell Co., Inc., 7 A.D.3d 739......
-
Cappabianca v. Skanska U.S. Bldg. Inc.
...when, while utilizing a wet saw, his foot fell through a slat on the pallet, causing him to twist his knee. See Meslin v New York Post, 30 A.D.3d 309, 310 (1st Dept. 2006)(plaintiff's injuries were not compensable under Labor Law § 240 (1) where plaintiff was allegedly injured when he stepp......