Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996

Oprea v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided April 30, 1996

226 A.D.2d 310; 642 N.Y.S.2d 499; 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4706

Cases that cite this one

8 later published cases cite this decision.

Hoyos v. NY-1095 Avenue of the Americas, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
Crutch v. 421 Kent Dev., LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
Lombardo v. Park Tower Management Ltd. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
Priestly v. Montefiore Medical Center (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
Crimi v. Neves Associates (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
Spiteri v. Chatwal Hotels (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
Santamaria v. 1125 Park Avenue Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
Skow v. Jones, Lang & Wooton Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Anne Targuxn, J.), entered July 17, 1995, which granted plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment on *311the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court properly found a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) where plaintiff slipped on a water tower ladder that lacked proper safety devices (see, Gordon v Eastern Ry. Supply, 82 NY2d 555, 561-562). Since defendant permitted the general contractor’s employees to use the ladder, which was the only means of access to the worksite, it was effectively furnished and operated within the meaning of the statute (see, Foufana v City of New York, 211 AD2d 550). That the ladder was permanently affixed to the water tower, or that the accident occurred while plaintiff was accessing the worksite as opposed to actually working on the ladder, does not preclude application of the statute (see, Ciraolo v Melville Ct. Assocs., 221 AD2d 582; Holka v Mt. Mercy Academy, 221 AD2d 949; Szopinski v MJ Mech. Servs., 217 AD2d 906).

Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals is denied; insofar as reargument is sought, the motion is granted solely to the extent of recalling and vacating the unpublished decision and order of this Court entered on March 12, 1996 (Appeal No. 57195), and substituting a new decision and order therefor. Concur—Wallach, J. P., Ross, Nardelli, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.