Gasques v. State
Cases that cite this one
28 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Mann v. Mezuyon, LLC (N.Y. 2026)
- Ryan v. Ballard Marine, LLC (District Court, S.D. New York 2025)
- Konkol v. Shinnecock Hills Golf Club (New York Supreme Court, Suffolk County 2024)
- Konkol v. Shinnecock Hills Golf Club (New York Supreme Court, Suffolk County 2024)
- Auclair v. Corning Incorporated (District Court, N.D. New York 2024)
- Curby Toussaint v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (N.Y. 2022)
- Lima v. HY 38 Owner, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
- Shencavitz v. Sugimoto (District Court, E.D. New York 2021)
- Ortega v. Trinity Hudson Holding LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
- De Jesus v. Metro-N. Commuter R.R. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
- Simmons v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
- Marquez v. L & M Development Partners, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- Palumbo v. Transit Technologies, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- Guallpa v. Canarsie Plaza, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- Palomeque v. Capital Improvement Services, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- Torres v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- Carrillo v. Circle Manor Apartments (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- Banscher v. Actus Lend Lease, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- Suarez v. State (N.Y. Ct. Cl. 2015)
- Karanikolas v. Elias Taverna, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- Torres v. Perry Street Development Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Torres v. Perry Street Development Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Ghany v. BC Tile Contractors, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Edick v. General Electric Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Edick v. General Electric Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
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
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division, insofar as appealed from, should be affirmed, with costs, and the certified question answered in the affirmative.
Claimant Wanderlei Gasques was injured while repainting the inside of a leg of the Kosciuszko Bridge, using a “spider scaffold.” His hand was injured when it became caught between the scaffold and the leg of the bridge, while the scaffold was ascending.
With respect to claimants’ Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action, the parties agree that Gasques’ hand was crushed because the scaffold continued to move, under the impetus of one of its motors, while his hand was trapped between an external motor control on the scaffold and the steel of the bridge. This injury was not the direct consequence of the application of the force of gravity to an object or person (see Runner v New York Stock Exch., Inc., 13 NY3d 599, 604 [2009]; Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 NY2d 494, 500-501 [1993]). Therefore claimants’ Labor Law § 240 (1) claim was properly dismissed.
Claimants’ Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action was also properly dismissed because it is based solely on 12 NYCRR 23-1.5 (c) (1), which requires that machinery or equipment used by employees be “in good repair and in safe working condition.” It is well established that, in a Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, the rule or regulation alleged to have been breached must be a “specific, positive command” (Rizzuto v L.A. Wenger Contr. Co., 91 NY2d 343, 349 [1998], quoting Ross, 81 NY2d at 504). 12 NYCRR 23-1.5 (c) (1) does not set forth a specific standard of conduct and therefore cannot serve as a predicate for a Labor Law § 241 (6) claim.
*871 Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Grapfeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur in memorandum.
Order, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, etc.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.