Klein v. City of New York
N.Y.
Citation analytics
How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Citations by decade
Courts citing this case
Most recently cited by10
- 2026Lapinski v. MIP One Wall St. Acquisition LLC N.Y. App. Div.
- 2026Delisle v. FBBT/US Props., LLC N.Y. App. Div.
- 2026Filis v. Trustees of Columbia Univ. in the City of N.Y. N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty.
- 2025Acosta v. Shanahan Group, LLC N.Y. App. Div.
- 2025Pillco v. 160 Dikeman St., LLC N.Y. App. Div.
- 2025Canales-Diaz v. City of New York N.Y. App. Div.
- 2025Davis v. Manhattan Chelsea Mkt. LLC N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty.
- 2025Medina v. 1277 Holdings, LLC N.Y. App. Div.
- 2025Booth v. One Sixteen, Inc. N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty.
- 2025Cartessa Aesthetics, LLC v. Kalenak N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty.
Cites 1 case
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Opinion
Paul Klein et al., Respondents, v City of New York, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant. Michael Mazzeo Electric Co., Third-Party Defendant-Appellant.
Attorneys
- APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
- Paul A. Crotty, Corporation Counsel of New York City (Elaine R. Witkoff and Larry A. Sonnenshein of counsel), for City of New York, appellant.
- Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, New York City (Michael L. Boulhosa and John Doody of counsel), for Michael Mazzeo Electric Co., appellant.
- Ginsberg & Broome, P. C., New York City (Robert M. Ginsberg of counsel), for respondents.
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, and the certified question answered in the affirmative.
Plaintiff commenced this action pursuant to section 240 (1) of the Labor Law after sustaining personal injuries in an accident which plaintiff alleged occurred when the ladder which he had ascended slipped out from under him causing him to fall. The room where the accident occurred had been flooded a few days before the accident with "air scubber water” which defendant conceded could have some degree of greasiness, slickness or slipperiness. Plaintiff, who was the sole witness to the accident, testified that although the room appeared clean to him when he entered, after his fall, he observed a film or "gunk” on the floor where he had placed the ladder.
Labor Law § 240 (1) requires that safety devices such as ladders be so "constructed, placed and operated as to give proper protection” to a worker. "[T]he legislative history of the Labor Law, particularly sections 240 and 241, makes clear the Legislature’s intent to achieve the purpose of protecting workers by placing 'ultimate responsibility for safety practices at building construction jobs where such responsibility actually belongs, on the owner and general contractor’ ” (Zimmer v Chemung County Performing Arts, 65 NY2d 513, 520).
Plaintiff has established a prima facie case that defendant violated Labor Law § 240 (1) by failing to ensure the proper placement of the ladder due to the condition of the floor (see, Ferra v County of Wayne, 147 AD2d 964). Since neither the defendant nor third-party defendant has presented any evidence of a triable issue of fact relating to the prima facie case or to plaintiff’s credibility, summary judgment was properly awarded to the plaintiff.
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick concur in memorandum.
Order affirmed, etc.