Koploff v. St. Vincent Ferrer Church

5 Citing cases

  1. Berghoff v. U.S.

    737 F. Supp. 199 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)   Cited 16 times
    Stating that a contract that allowed for government safety inspections and required government preapproval of progressive stages of a construction project constituted insufficient government supervision to make an independent contractor a federal agent

    Section 241-a, which relates to planking over floor openings at construction sites, also imposes a non-delegable duty on property owners to assure the safety of such planking, even if the owners employ independent contractors. Silvers v. E. W. Howell Inc., 129 A.D.2d 694, 514 N.Y.S.2d 455 (2nd Dep't 1987); Horan v. Dormitory Authority, 43 A.D.2d 65, 349 N.Y.S.2d 448 (3rd Dep't 1973); Koploff v. St. Vincent Ferrer Church, 39 A.D.2d 581, 331 N.Y.S.2d 719 (2nd Dep't 1972), appeal dismissed, 30 N.Y.2d 949, 335 N.Y.S.2d 700, 287 N.E.2d 390. Section 240(1) states, in pertinent part: "All contractors and owners and their agents, except owners of one and two-family dwellings who contract for but do not direct or control the work, in the erection, demolition, repairing, altering, painting, cleaning or pointing of a building or structure shall furnish or erect, or cause to be furnished or erected for the performance of such labor, scaffolding, hoists, stays, ladders, slings, hangers, blocks, pulleys, braces, irons, ropes, and other devices which shall be so constructed, placed and operated as to give proper protection to a person so employed."

  2. Doucoure v. Atlantic Development Group, LLC

    18 A.D.3d 337 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)   Cited 9 times

    Accordingly, a violation of Labor Law § 241-a is established. However, although the defense of comparative negligence is unavailable to a defendant whose violation of Labor Law § 241-a has been shown to be a proximate cause of a plaintiff's injury ( see Horan v. Dormitory Auth., 43 AD2d 65; Koploff v. St. Vincent Ferrer Church, 39 AD2d 581 [2d Dept 1972], lv dismissed 30 NY2d 949; Duncan v. Twin Leasing Corp., 283 App Div 1080 [2d Dept 1954]; 52 New York Jur 2d, Employment Relations § 306), here, a factual question is presented as to whether this violation constituted a proximate cause of the accident. Therefore, plaintiff's entitlement to judgment as a matter of law upon his section 241-a claim as against Ogden was not established. The claim was properly dismissed as against MC and O Construction and Atlantic Development since neither was an agent of the owner for purposes of imposing liability under the statute.

  3. Spinelli v. St. John Nepomucene Roman

    140 A.D.2d 427 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)   Cited 7 times
    In Spinelli v. St. John Nepomucene R. C. Church (140 A.D.2d 427) and Marcellino v. Nigro (149 A.D.2d 775), the plaintiffs' sole claim was the alleged failure to provide planking over an open stairwell.

    Rather, the plaintiffs fault St. John's for not providing planking across the open stairway. This alleged negligence simply does not fall within the purview of Labor Law § 240 (1); rather, this situation is governed by Labor Law § 241 (6) and § 241-a (see, Koploff v St. Vincent Ferrer Church, 39 A.D.2d 581, lv dismissed 30 N.Y.2d 949), and the plaintiffs have clearly failed to establish their entitlement to partial summary judgment against St. John's under either of these statutes. Thompson, J.P., Kunzeman, Rubin and Harwood, JJ., concur.

  4. Horan v. Dormitory Auth

    43 A.D.2d 65 (N.Y. App. Div. 1973)   Cited 14 times
    Awarding damages to student who could no longer receive his pharmacy degree

    "Any men working in or at elevator shaftways, hatchways and stairwells of buildings in course of construction or demolition shall be protected by sound planking at least two inches thick laid across the opening at levels not more than two stories above and not more than one story below such men, or by other means specified in the rules of the board." Section 241-a requires that stairwells in buildings under construction be protected by a cover of "sound" planking laid across the opening at levels "not more than one story below" where men are working, which section has been strictly construed applying to owners of the building as well as contractors. ( Koploff v. St. Vincent Ferrer Church, 39 A.D.2d 581, app. dsmd. 30 N.Y.2d 949; Haskins v. City of New York, 28 A.D.2d 656; Vassiliades v. Blitz, 36 Misc.2d 5.) Further, contributory negligence is not a defense where a violation of this section is involved. ( Koploff v. St. Vincent Ferrer Church, supra.)

  5. Williams v. D.A.H. Construction Corp.

    42 A.D.2d 877 (N.Y. App. Div. 1973)   Cited 1 times

    In our opinion Trial Term erred in directing a verdict for plaintiff in this case. (See Parello v. Clover Leaf Towers Corp., 38 A.D.2d 731; Koploff v. St. Vincent Ferrer Church, 39 A.D.2d 581.) We are of the further view that Trial Term improperly granted judgment in favor of the third-party plaintiff against the third-party defendant on contract indemnity.