In Rocovich v. Consolidated Edison, 78 NY2d 509, 577 NYS2d 219 (1991), the Court of Appeals established that the hazards which are within the scope of §240(1) are those related to elevation differentials which require the types of safety devices called for in the statute:
‘Narducci v. Manhasset Bay Associates’
In Narducci v. Manhasset Bay Associates, 96 NY2d 259, 727 NYS2d 37 (2001), the Court of Appeals analyzed the types of hazards within the scope of §240(1) which are specifically related to falling objects. As will be discussed herein, unresolved questions remain post-Narducci which have generated conflicting decisions in the lower courts.
In Narducci, the plaintiff was standing on a ladder when a large piece of glass from an adjacent window frame fell and struck his arm. The window was part of the pre-existing structure of the building and no one was working on it when the glass fell. There was no evidence that anyone had worked on the window during the entire project. The court held that this accident, involving a part of the building which was not an integral part of the renovation work, was not within the scope of §240(1), as it was not a situation where a hoisting or securing device of the kind enumerated in the statute was either necessary or expected. The court stated:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]