Sihly v. New York City Transit Authority
Decision Date | 19 April 2001 |
Citation | 282 A.D.2d 337,723 N.Y.S.2d 189 |
Parties | ELSAYED SIHLY et al., Appellants,<BR>v.<BR>NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Respondent. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Concur — Williams, J. P., Wallach, Lerner, Rubin and Friedman, JJ.
Leave to amend was properly denied since, at this juncture in the litigation, the claims plaintiffs propose to add to their complaint and bill of particulars appear to be plainly without merit (see, e.g., Koss v Board of Trustees, 281 AD2d 200).
Plaintiff was allegedly injured at a construction site when, while descending from a ladder, with one foot already on the work platform, his other leg "tripped" on what apparently was a part of the work platform, causing him to fall to the work platform. Contrary to plaintiff's argument, injuries sustained by him by reason of the accident, as alleged, are not compen-sable pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1) since the accident was not attributable to the kind of extraordinary elevation-related risk that the statute was intended to guard against (see, Nieves v Five Boro Air Conditioning & Refrig. Corp., 93 NY2d 914; Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 NY2d 494, 500-501).
The alleged violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.5, a regulation that only sets general safety standards, would not constitute a basis for a claim under Labor Law § 241 (6) (see, Hawkins v City of New York, 275 AD2d 634).
The alleged violation of Labor Law § 200 would not constitute a basis for liability since there is no indication that defendant directed or controlled the performance of the work in which plaintiff was engaged at the time of his injury (see, Rizzuto v Wenger Contr. Co., 91 NY2d 343, 352).
We modify only to the extent of granting plaintiffs leave to renew their motion with respect to their Labor Law § 200 claim, since pending relevant discovery may provide a basis for such claim.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Caravello v. City of New York
... ... 3d 333, 887 N.E. 2d 1125 [2008] and Cahill v. Trlborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority, 4 N.Y. 3d 35, 823 N.E. 2d 439,790 N.Y.S. 2d 74 [2004]). Lessees can be deemed "owners" within the ... that Is Insufficient to support causes of action made pursuant to Labor Law 241 [6] (Sihly v. New York City Transit Authority, 282 A.D. 2d 337,723 N.Y.S. 2d 189 [N.Y.A.D. 1" Dept., 2001]) ... ...
-
Arizaga v. Lex Gardens II TP4 Hous. Dev. Fund Co.
... ... existence of triable issues of fact ( see Zuckerman v City ... of New York , 49 N.Y.2d 557, 63 [1980]). Summary ... § 241(6)" ( Sihly v New York City Tr ... Auth. , 282 A.D.2d 337 [1st Dept ... authority to supervise or control the means and methods of ... the ... ...
-
Kovyachenko v. Elite Floor Serv.
... ... 157216/2018, Motion Seq. No. 002Supreme Court, New York CountyJanuary 12, 2024 ... Unpublished ... liable under this section because it lacked the authority" ... to supervise or control plaintiff Igor's work ... \xC2" ... Pouso v Columbia Univ, in the City of N.Y., ... 2012 NY Slip Op 33080[U], * 14 [SC NY Co ... against" (Sihly v New York City ... Tr. Auth., 282 A.D.2d 337, 723 ... York Transit Auth., 21 A.D.3d 259, 259 [1st Dept 2005] ... [Labor Law ... ...
-
Femoyer v. Cnty. of Suffolk
...of Islip Town Code §68-406 appears to be plainly without merit at this juncture in the litigation (see Sihly v New York City Tr. Auth, 282 A.D.2d 337, 723 N.Y.S.2d 189 [1st Dept 2001]). Accordingly, the branch of plaintiffs cross motion for leave to amend the bill of particulars is granted ......