Striegel v. HILLCREST HGTS.,

CourtNew York Court of Appeals
Writing for the CourtSMITH, J.
Citation800 N.E.2d 1093,768 N.Y.S.2d 727,100 N.Y.2d 974
Decision Date21 October 2003
PartiesROBERT STRIEGEL, Respondent, v. HILLCREST HEIGHTS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Appellant.

100 N.Y.2d 974
800 N.E.2d 1093
768 N.Y.S.2d 727

ROBERT STRIEGEL, Respondent,
v.
HILLCREST HEIGHTS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Appellant

Court of Appeals of the State of New York.

Argued September 9, 2003.

Decided October 21, 2003.


Offermann, Cassano, Greco & Slisz, LLP, Buffalo (Duane D. Schoonmaker of counsel), for appellant.

100 N.Y.2d 975
Lipsitz, Green, Fahringer, Roll, Salisbury & Cambria LLP, Buffalo (John A. Collins of counsel), for respondent

Chief Judge KAYE and Judges CIPARICK, ROSENBLATT, GRAFFEO and READ concur.

OPINION OF THE COURT

SMITH, J.

The issue in this case is whether plaintiff's accident was covered under Labor Law § 240 (1). We agree with the courts below that it was.

Defendant Hillcrest Heights Development Corporation retained plaintiff's employer, Sahlem's Roofing & Siding, Inc.,

100 N.Y.2d 976
to perform work on the roofs of newly built homes. According to plaintiff's pretrial testimony, on the day of the accident, he was instructed to lay felt (a material used for insulation) and shingles on the roof of a house under construction. As plaintiff was walking along the ridge (where both sides of the roof converge) with a roll of felt on his shoulder, his left foot slipped on the side of the roof covered with frost, his body twisted and his groin hit against the ridge. As his body twisted, plaintiff heard "a loud crack" from his back. Plaintiff slid 15 to 20 feet down the roof to the eaves, the lower border of the roof, where several protruding nails snagged his pants, preventing him from falling to the ground. After plaintiff made his way down, he began vomiting and his legs became numb. A coworker drove plaintiff to a bar where he was placed on a table, after which he called his parents who took him to a hospital

It is undisputed that plaintiff was not provided with any safety devices. Earlier on the day of the accident, on his way to another work site, plaintiff had passed the Hillcrest site and noticed that there were toe boards, which create a "runway to load the roof." At the time of the accident, the toe boards were no longer present. In the other work site, scaffolding and roof brackets were made available.

Plaintiff commenced this action, arguing that defendant was liable for his injuries under Labor Law § 240 (1) ("Scaffolding and other devices for use of employees") which states:

"[a]ll contractors and owners and their agents * * * in the erection * * * of a building or structure shall furnish or erect, or cause to be furnished or erected for the performance of such labor, scaffolding, hoists, stays, ladders, slings, hangers, blocks, pulleys, braces, irons, ropes, and other devices which shall be so constructed, placed and operated as to give proper protection to a person so employed."

Defendant in turn commenced a third-party action against...

To continue reading

Request your trial
40 practice notes
  • Scott v. 122 E. 42 St. LLC, No. 17472/2007.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • 1 Marzo 2012
    ...contractors to provide safety devices to protect workers from elevation-related risks ( see, Striegel v. Hillcrest Hgts. Dev. Corp., 100 N.Y.2d 974, 977 [2003];Ross v. Curtis–Palmer Hydro–Elec. Co., 81 N.Y.2d 494, 500–501 [1993];Barr v. 1575 Ave., LLC, 60 A.D.3d 796, 797, 875 N.Y.S.2d 228 [......
  • Sicilia v. City of New York, 2009 NY Slip Op 32832(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 12/4/2009), 103443/2003
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • 4 Diciembre 2009
    ...the Scaffolding Law regardless of whether it exercised Page 13 supervision or control. Id.; Streigel v. Hillcrest Heights Dev. Corp., 100 N.Y.2d 974, 977, 800 N.E.2d 1093, 1095, 768 N.Y.S.2d 727, 729 In order to enforce this duty on a contractor or owner, however, the injury must have arise......
  • Torres v. Perry St. Dev. Corp.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • 6 Marzo 2013
    ...omitted] ), and the hazard presented here is of the type contemplated in Labor Law § 240(1) ( see Striegel v. Hillcrest Hgts. Dev. Corp., 100 N.Y.2d 974, 978, 768 N.Y.S.2d 727, 800 N.E.2d 1093;De Haen v. Rockwood Sprinkler Co., 258 N.Y. 350, 353–354, 179 N.E. 764;Cantineri v. Carrere, 60 A.......
  • Nicometi v. Vineyards of Fredonia, LLC
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (New York)
    • 2 Abril 2015
    ...afforded by that statutory provision.3 Contrary to plaintiff's contention, our holding in Striegel v. Hillcrest Hgts. Dev. Corp., 100 N.Y.2d 974, 768 N.Y.S.2d 727, 800 N.E.2d 1093 (2003) does not mandate a different conclusion. There, the plaintiff slipped on frost and slid down a sloped ro......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
40 cases
  • Scott v. 122 E. 42 St. LLC, No. 17472/2007.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • 1 Marzo 2012
    ...contractors to provide safety devices to protect workers from elevation-related risks ( see, Striegel v. Hillcrest Hgts. Dev. Corp., 100 N.Y.2d 974, 977 [2003];Ross v. Curtis–Palmer Hydro–Elec. Co., 81 N.Y.2d 494, 500–501 [1993];Barr v. 1575 Ave., LLC, 60 A.D.3d 796, 797, 875 N.Y.S.2d 228 [......
  • Sicilia v. City of New York, 2009 NY Slip Op 32832(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 12/4/2009), 103443/2003
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • 4 Diciembre 2009
    ...the Scaffolding Law regardless of whether it exercised Page 13 supervision or control. Id.; Streigel v. Hillcrest Heights Dev. Corp., 100 N.Y.2d 974, 977, 800 N.E.2d 1093, 1095, 768 N.Y.S.2d 727, 729 In order to enforce this duty on a contractor or owner, however, the injury must have arise......
  • Torres v. Perry St. Dev. Corp.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • 6 Marzo 2013
    ...omitted] ), and the hazard presented here is of the type contemplated in Labor Law § 240(1) ( see Striegel v. Hillcrest Hgts. Dev. Corp., 100 N.Y.2d 974, 978, 768 N.Y.S.2d 727, 800 N.E.2d 1093;De Haen v. Rockwood Sprinkler Co., 258 N.Y. 350, 353–354, 179 N.E. 764;Cantineri v. Carrere, 60 A.......
  • Nicometi v. Vineyards of Fredonia, LLC
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (New York)
    • 2 Abril 2015
    ...afforded by that statutory provision.3 Contrary to plaintiff's contention, our holding in Striegel v. Hillcrest Hgts. Dev. Corp., 100 N.Y.2d 974, 768 N.Y.S.2d 727, 800 N.E.2d 1093 (2003) does not mandate a different conclusion. There, the plaintiff slipped on frost and slid down a sloped ro......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT