Kaminski v. 22-61 42nd Street, LLC
Cases that cite this one
7 later published cases cite this decision.
- Gomez v. Kitchen & Bath by Linda Burkhardt, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
- Cano v. Mid-Valley Oil Co., Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- Cardenas v. 111-127 Cabrini Apartments Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- Paganini v. Congregation Eretz H'Chaim (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Paganini v. Congregation Eretz H'Chaim (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Paredes v. 1668 Realty Associates (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Paredes v. 1668 Realty Associates (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
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
The plaintiff allegedly was injured while repairing stucco on a building in Queens. He commenced this action against the owner of the building, asserting, among other things, a cause of action pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1). After discovery was completed, the plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability on that cause of action. The plaintiff made a prima facie showing of his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence that the defendant hired Denton Stoneworks (hereinafter Denton) to repair stucco, that Denton, in turn, engaged the plaintiff to perform the work at an hourly rate, and that during the course of the work, he allegedly was injured when an inadequately secured ladder that he was descending slipped or moved, causing him to fall (see Raynor v Quality Plaza Realty, LLC, 84 AD3d 774, 774-775 [2011]; Herrera v Union Mech. of NY Corp., 80 AD3d 564, 565 [2011]). Contrary to the defendant’s contention, in opposing the motion, the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff was an employee within the meaning of Labor Law § 240 (1) (see Singh v City of New York, 68 AD3d 1095, 1096 [2009]).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the plain
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.