From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Montgomery v. Federal Express Corporation

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Mar 24, 2005
4 N.Y.3d 805 (N.Y. 2005)
Download
PDF
Check
Treatment

Summary

granting defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's section 240 claim, where plaintiff's use of a bucket to ascend a rooftop, and a leap to descend, was not a "normal and logical response," as a ladder was available

Summary of this case from Ambrosi v. 1085 Park Avenue LLC
See 19 Summaries

Opinion

75.

Decided March 24, 2005.

APPEAL, by permission of the Court of Appeals, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, entered August 21, 2003. The Appellate Division (1) reversed, on the law, a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy Friedman, J.), which, insofar as appealed from, had granted plaintiff's cross motion for partial summary judgment against defendants Federal Express Corporation and JM Dennis Corp., on the issue of liability on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, and denied third-party defendant Fortune Interior Dismantling Corp.'s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint, (2) denied plaintiff's cross motion, (3) granted defendants' cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and (4) granted third-party defendant's cross motion.

Montgomery v. Federal Express Corp., 307 AD2d 865, affirmed.

Pollack, Pollack, Isaac De Cicco, New York City ( Brian J. Isaac of counsel), for appellant.

Geringer Dolan LLP, New York City ( John T. McNamara of counsel), for respondents.

Third-party defendant-respondent precluded.

Before: Chief Judge KAYE and Judges G.B. SMITH, CIPARICK, ROSENBLATT, GRAFFEO, READ and R.S. SMITH concur.

OPINION OF THE COURT

MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed with costs.

Plaintiff, who was employed as a helper by an elevator company, and Peter Mazzei, an elevator mechanic, were assigned to do work in an elevator "motor room" located some four feet above the roof level of a building. Arriving on the roof, plaintiff and Mazzei found that stairs that had previously led from the roof to the motor room had been removed. There was no ladder in the immediate vicinity, but ladders were available at the job site.

Rather than go and get a ladder, plaintiff and Mazzei climbed to the motor room by standing on an inverted bucket. When he left the motor room, plaintiff jumped down to the roof, injuring his knee in the process.

We agree with the Appellate Division that, since ladders were readily available, plaintiff's "normal and logical response" should have been to go get one. Plaintiff's choice to use a bucket to get up, and then to jump down, was the sole cause of his injury, and he is therefore not entitled to recover under Labor Law § 240 (1) ( Blake v. Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of N.Y. City, 1 N.Y.3d 280).

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals ( 22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Summaries of

Montgomery v. Federal Express Corporation

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Mar 24, 2005
4 N.Y.3d 805 (N.Y. 2005)

granting defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's section 240 claim, where plaintiff's use of a bucket to ascend a rooftop, and a leap to descend, was not a "normal and logical response," as a ladder was available

Summary of this case from Ambrosi v. 1085 Park Avenue LLC

denying recovery where worker failed to use a ladder that was "readily" available at work site although some distance away

Summary of this case from Fernandez v. CMB Contracting

affirming summary judgment where plaintiff's use of inverted bucket to gain access to roof rather than a readily available ladder was the sole cause of injury

Summary of this case from Guenther v. Modern Continental Companies

In Montgomery, for example, there was no indication that the plaintiff was instructed not to climb on an inverted bucket (4 N.Y.3d at 806, 795 N.Y.S.2d 490, 828 N.E.2d 592).

Summary of this case from Biaca-Neto v. Bos. Rd. II Hous. Dev. Fund Corp.

In Montgomery, we held that a worker who injured himself when he jumped from an elevator motor room to a roof, rather than use a "readily available" ladder, was not entitled to recover under Labor Law § 240 (1).

Summary of this case from Gallagher v. the New York Post

In Montgomery v. Federal Express Corp. (4 NY3d 805), the plaintiff and another worker were assigned a task to be performed in an elevator "motor room," which was located four feet above the roof level of a building.

Summary of this case from Robinson v. East Medical Center

In Montgomery, the plaintiffs section 240 (1) claim was dismissed because he chose to jump four feet from the roof of an elevator room to the next level, despite the availability of ladders on the job site.

Summary of this case from Rice v. West 37th Group, LLC

In Montgomery, the plaintiff and his supervisor were assigned to do work in an elevator motor room, which was located four feet above the roof level of the building in which they were working.

Summary of this case from Cherry v. Time Warner, Inc.

In Montgomery v Federal Express Corp. (4 NY3d 805), the plaintiff chose not to get one of the ladders that were available elsewhere at the job site, and instead stood on an inverted bucket to climb up to a motor room elevated above the building's roof; he subsequently injured himself when he jumped down to the roof (id. at 806).

Summary of this case from Miro v. Plaza Construction Corp.

In Montgomery, for example, the Court affirmed the dismissal of the statutory claim even though "[t]here was no ladder in the immediate vicinity" of the rooftop where the plaintiff was doing his job (4 NY3d at 806).

Summary of this case from Miro v. Plaza Construction Corp.

In Montgomery v Federal Express Corp. (4 NY3d 805 [2005]), plaintiff was injured when he ascended to and then descended from a roof using an upside-down bucket, although he knew there were ladders available for such purpose on the work site.

Summary of this case from Hynson v. State

In Montgomery v Fed. Express Corp., 4 NY3d 805, 795 NYS2d 490 (1st Dept 2005), rather than retrieve a ladder, the plaintiff's behavior was found to be the sole proximate cause of his injuries where he used an inverted bucket to ascend to a motor room rather than a ladder.

Summary of this case from Gambino v. City of N.Y.

In Montgomery v. Fed. Express Corp., 4 N.Y.3d 805, 795 N.Y.S.2d 490, 828 N.E.2d 592 (1st Dept 2005), rather than retrieve a ladder, the plaintiff's behavior was found to be the sole proximate cause of his injuries where he used an inverted bucket to ascend to a motor room rather than a ladder.

Summary of this case from Gambino v. City of N.Y.

In Montgomery v Federal Express Corp. (4 NY3d 805, 806 [2005]), the plaintiff was found to be the sole proximate cause of his injuries when he used a bucket instead of a ladder to gain access to a motor room.

Summary of this case from Scekic v. SL Green Realty Corp.

In Montgomery v Federal Express Corp. (4 NY3d 805 [2005]), the plaintiff and another worker were assigned a task to be performed in an elevator "motor room," which was located four feet above the roof level of a building.

Summary of this case from Przyborowski v. A&M Cook, LLC

In Montgomery v Federal Express Corp. (4 NY3d 805), the plaintiff was found to be the sole proximate cause of his injuries where he used a bucket instead of a ladder to gain access to a motor room.

Summary of this case from Munoz v. Hilton Hotels Corp.

In Montgomery v Federal Express Corp. (4 NY3d 805), the plaintiff, an elevator mechanic, was assigned to do work in an elevator "motor room."

Summary of this case from POPLAWSKI v. IAC/GEORGETOWN 19TH STREET

In Montgomery, the Court found that the necessary safety devices were "readily available" and "at the job site" (Montgomery, 4 NY3d at 806).

Summary of this case from Chlebowski v. Esber

In Montgomery v Federal Express, 4 NY3d 805, 795 NYS2d 490 (2005), the plaintiff used a bucket, turning it upside down to stand on when ladders were available. When he jumped down from the bucket, he injured himself.

Summary of this case from Principe v. Presta
Case details for

Montgomery v. Federal Express Corporation

Case Details

Full title:CHARLES REGINALD MONTGOMERY, JR., Appellant, v. FEDERAL EXPRESS…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Mar 24, 2005

Citations

4 N.Y.3d 805 (N.Y. 2005)
795 N.Y.S.2d 490
828 N.E.2d 592

Citing Cases

Cherry v. Time Warner, Inc.

In more recent decisions, however, the Court has seemingly diluted this unequivocal stance to a point where…

Biaca-Neto v. Bos. Rd. II Hous. Dev. Fund Corp.

Given defendants' purported acquiescence to this alleged practice, the general contractor's standing order…

205 Citing Cases