Hyperlawhypertext legal databasebeta Mehmedagic v. New York University Medical Center 247 A.D.2d 256

← Cases

Mehmedagic v. New York University Medical Center

247 A.D.2d 256 Court N.Y. App. Div. Decision date 1998-02-10 English

Judges Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Rubin and Tom, JJ.

Contents

Majority

p. 256
Hamid Mehmedagic et al., Respondents, v New York University Medical Center, Respondent. New York University, Sued Herein as University Medical Center, Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant, v Erectra Construction Corp. et al., Third-Party Defendants-Appellants-Respondents.
[668 NYS2d 597]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Goodman, J.), entered on or about April 2, 1997, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendant and third-party plaintiffs motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ cause of action under the Labor Law and denied third-party defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Issues of fact exist as to whether the employee was injured in the course of construction work on the structure (see, Martin v Back O'Beyond, 198 AD2d 479 ). The fixed ladder is arguably covered by Labor Law § 240, since there is some evidence that it was required for access to a roof-top work space (see, Szopinski v MJ Mech. Servs., 217 AD2d 906 , appeals dismissed 87 NY2d 861 ; Kirchner v BRC Human Servs. Corp., 224 AD2d 270 ). Plaintiffs have satisfied the need for allegation of a specific, concrete provision of the Industrial Code to support a Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action (see, Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 NY2d 494 , 505). We have considered the parties’ remaining arguments for affirmative relief and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Rubin and Tom, JJ.

Cases cited

Statutes and regulations cited