Pigott v. State
| Decision Date | 16 December 1993 |
| Parties | Nelson PIGOTT, Appellant, v. STATE of New York, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Martin Rubenstein, New York City, for appellant.
Robert Abrams, Atty. Gen. (Daniel Smirlock, of counsel), Albany, for respondent.
Before WEISS, P.J., and MERCURE, CREW and WHITE, JJ.
Appeal from an order of the Court of Claims (Margolis, J.), entered January 5, 1993, which denied claimant's motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability.
Claimant, a former inmate of Mt. McGregor Correctional Facility in Saratoga County who was a volunteer participating in a community services program (7 NYCRR 1901.1[b], sustained personal injuries when he fell from a roof he was repairing in the Town of in Lake Luzerne, Saratoga County. Thereafter, he brought this claim against the State predicated upon, inter alia, Labor Law § 240(1). Following completion of discovery, claimant moved for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability. The Court of Claims denied the motion, finding that Labor Law § 240(1) did not apply to the State in these circumstances. We affirm.
In order to invoke the protection afforded by Labor Law § 240(1), claimant must demonstrate that he was both permitted or suffered to work on a building or structure and that he was hired by someone, be it owner, contractor or their agent (see, Mordkofsky v. V.C.V. Dev. Corp., 76 N.Y.2d 573, 561 N.Y.S.2d 892, 563 N.E.2d 263). In this case, because claimant was participating in a community service program as a volunteer, he cannot claim the protection afforded by Labor Law § 240(1) (see, Whelen v. Warwick Val. Civic & Social Club, 47 N.Y.2d 970, 971, 419 N.Y.S.2d 959, 393 N.E.2d 1032). This finding is consistent with Correction Law § 858 which limits the pertinent provisions of the Labor Law to inmates participating in work release programs.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lee v. Jones
...322, lv. denied 43 N.Y.2d 643, 401 N.Y.S.2d 1027, 372 N.E.2d 580; see, Mordkofsky v. V.C.V. Dev. Corp., supra; Pigott v. State of New York, 199 A.D.2d 734, 605 N.Y.S.2d 446; Chabot v. Baer, 82 A.D.2d 928, 440 N.Y.S.2d 734, affd. 55 N.Y.2d 844, 447 N.Y.S.2d 705, 432 N.E.2d 598). Therefore, i......
-
D'Argenio v. Village of Homer
... ... the only way in which D'Argenio might be considered an employee, for purposes of the Labor Law, is if it could be said that he was hired by the State as an agent of defendants. We reject that notion ... It has long been held that inmates who perform work at the direction of ... 7 NYCRR 1901.1[b][1], [3]; 1903.1[e][5], D'Argenio was working as a volunteer and cannot claim the protection afforded by the Labor Law (see, Pigott" v. State of New York, 199 A.D.2d 734, 605 N.Y.S.2d 446). Accordingly, plaintiffs' complaint should be dismissed in its entirety. 1 ... \xC2" ... ...
- Mid-Atlantic Autec v. Keeler Motor Car Co., MID-ATLANTIC
-
Mahoney v. Lewis
... ... residence frequently is construed to mean domicile, notwithstanding the fact that the technical distinction is well appreciated (see, e.g., State of New York v. Collins, 78 A.D.2d 295, 296-297, 435 N.Y.S.2d 161). In making this determination the focus is not only upon the particular subject ... ...