Weaver v. Lazarus, 1
| Decision Date | 18 April 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,No. 2,1,2 |
| Parties | Russell WEAVER, et al., Appellants, v. Jerome LAZARUS et al., Defendants-Respondents; et al., Defendants; East Coast Steel, Inc., Defendant Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent; et al., Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent; et al., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent. (Action) Louis CALABRETTA, et al., Appellants, v. Jerome LAZARUS, et al., Defendants-Respondents; East Coast Steel, Inc., Defendant Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent; et al., Third-Party Plaintiffs-Respondents; et al., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent. (Action) |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Feren & Flynn, New York City (Michael D. Flynn, New York City, of counsel), for appellants in Action No. 1.
Blottner, Derrico & Hoffman, Melville (G. Ronald Hoffman, Melville, of counsel), for appellants in Action No. 2.
Flynn, Gibbons & Dowd, New York City (John P. Rooney, New York City, of counsel), for defendants-respondents Jefry Rosmarin, Karen A. Rosmarin, Peter Rosmarin and Lauri Rosmarin Plattner as executors of the estate of Jerry Rosmarin, deceased, Jerome Lazarus, and Sol Kanov, d/b/a Merge Co.
Newman & Schlau, P.C., New York City (Murray T. Feiden and E. Paul Dougherty, Jr., New York City, of counsel), for defendant third-party plaintiff-respondent East Coast Steel, Inc.
Before MOLLEN, P.J., and DAMIANI, TITONE and MANGANO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In actions to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their briefs, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated July 12, 1982, as denied their motions for summary judgment on the ground that the defendants Lazarus, Rosmarin and Kanov, doing business as Merge Co., are absolutely liable under section 240 of the Labor Law.
Order reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with one bill of costs to appellants appearing separately and filing separate briefs, payable by defendants-respondents, and motions for summary judgment granted.
The injured plaintiffs were bricklayers employed by the third-party defendant John Ruggiero, Inc., the masonry subcontractor of Jerome Lazarus, Jerry Rosmarin and Sol Kanov, doing business as Merge Co. (hereinafter defendant Merge), owners of the subject building that was under construction. On November 11, 1976, the injured plaintiffs were working on a scaffold work platform consisting of wooden planks erected on unsecured steel bar joists. The scaffold work platform collapsed, causing them to fall and sustain serious injuries. Thereafter these actions were commenced by the injured plaintiffs and their wives to recover damages for personal injuries, loss of consortium, etc. The plaintiffs in both actions moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability against defendant Merge claiming that it was absolutely liable pursuant to section 240 of the Labor Law. That statute provides, inter alia, that all scaffolding shall be "so constructed, placed and operated as to give proper protection" to employees using it (Labor Law, § 240, subd. 1). The injured plaintiffs claimed that while they were working on the scaffold it collapsed. An affirmation by defendant Merge's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harvel v. City of Johnston City
...124 A.D.2d 980, 508 N.Y.S.2d 810; Bland v. Manocherian (1985), 66 N.Y.2d 452, 497 N.Y.S.2d 880, 488 N.E.2d 810; Weaver v. Lazarus (1983), 93 A.D.2d 859, 461 N.Y.S.2d 363; Kalofonos v. State (1982), 115 Misc.2d 692, 454 N.Y.S.2d 645,aff'd (1984), 104 A.D.2d 75, 481 N.Y.S.2d 415.) Construing ......
-
US UNDERWRITERS INS. v. CONGREGATION B'NAI
...employee while using defective or improperly placed scaffolding or other equipment governed by the statute. Weaver v. Lazarus, 93 A.D.2d 859, 461 N.Y.S.2d 363 (2d Dep't 1983) (scaffolding); Bland v. Manocherian, 66 N.Y.2d 452, 497 N.Y.S.2d 880, 488 N.E.2d 810 (1985) Eskandar's complaint was......
-
Carmody v. ADM Mill. Co.
...therefrom. See, e.g., Kerr v. Rochester Gas & Electric Co., 113 A.D.2d 412, 496 N.Y.S.2d 880 (4th Dep't 1985); Weaver v. Lazarus, 93 A.D.2d 859, 461 N.Y.S.2d 363 (2d Dep't 1983). The absolute liability of § 240(1) results not only from the owner's actions, but from the actions of its contra......
-
Mack v. Altmans Stage Lighting Co., Inc.
...they have over the work performed (Haimes v. New York Tel. Co., 46 N.Y.2d 132, 412 N.Y.S.2d 863, 385 N.E.2d 601; Weaver v. Lazarus, 93 A.D.2d 859, 860, 461 N.Y.S.2d 363; DaBolt v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 92 A.D.2d 70, 74, 459 N.Y.S.2d 503). All the plaintiff must prove is that the statute wa......