New York Court of Appeals, 1992

Groves v. Land's End Housing Co.

New York Court of Appeals · Decided October 22, 1992

80 N.Y.2d 978; 607 N.E.2d 790; 592 N.Y.S.2d 643; 1992 N.Y. LEXIS 3484

Cases that cite this one

50 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

Violette v. Armonk Associates, L.P. (District Court, S.D. New York 1993)
Somereve v. Plaza Constr. Corp. (N.Y. 2018)
Churaman v. C&B Electric, Plumbing & Heating, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
Carpio v. Tishman Construction Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)
Board of Education v. Christa Construction, Inc. (N.Y. 1993)
Scanlon v. South St. Seaport L.P. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2026)
470 4th Ave. Fee Owner, LLC v. Wesco Ins. Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2025)
People v. Calafell (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
Kowalak v. Keystone Med. Servs. of N.Y., P.C. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
Rutherford v. Brooklyn Navy Yard Dev. Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
MEAG NY Corp. v. Schweitzer (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
Somereve v. Plaza Construction Corp. (N.Y. 2018)
Securitized Asset Funding 2011-2, Ltd. v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
Jones v. Jay P. Tovey Co., Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
Colgan v. Colgan (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Breytman v. Olinville Realty, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Breytman v. Olinville Realty, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Gregorian v. New York Life Insurance Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
In re the Estate of Fasciglione (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
Wilson v. Yemen Realty Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
Harvey v. Nealis (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
Quattrocchi v. F.J. Sciame Construction Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
Adrianis v. Fox (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
Afzal v. Board of Fire Commissioners of Bellmore Fire District (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
Kaferstein v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. (New York Supreme Court 2005)

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, and the certified question answered in the affirmative.

In this Labor Law § 240 (1) action against a site owner and general contractor, the Appellate Division denied as premature plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment as to liability, on the ground that there was "outstanding discovery sought by defendants, the opportunity to depose eyewitnesses and other witnesses.” (175 AD2d 733, 734, citing CPLR 3212 [f].) Given that defendants in their affidavits asserted that they needed more discovery time to depose witnesses as to the use and existence of safety devices, and given that the discovery timetables set forth in a preliminary conference order had not yet expired, we cannot conclude that the Appellate Division erred in its disposition.

Alternatively, the Appellate Division concluded that partial summary judgment was improper, relying on Yaeger v New York Tel. Co. (148 AD2d 308), because not every one of plaintiffs’ half-dozen or more varying versions of the accident involved work performed at heights. As we made clear in Rocovich v Consolidated Edison Co. (78 NY2d 509, 514), Labor Law § 240 (1) applies not simply where the work is performed at heights but where the work involves risks related to differences in elevation. Although Yaeger does not correctly state the law, the Appellate Division’s denial of plaintiffs’ summary *981judgment motion was nonetheless proper on the ground that "plaintiff[ ] [laborer’s] account of the accident as set forth in the complaint may not support a finding that this statute was violated.” (175 AD2d, at 734, supra.)

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur in memorandum; Judge Smith taking no part.

Order affirmed, etc.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.