From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Oakes v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Oct 4, 1991
176 A.D.2d 1240 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

October 4, 1991

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Jefferson County, Inglehart, J.

Present — Callahan, A.P.J., Denman, Pine, Balio and Lawton, JJ.


Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion denied and cross motion granted. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in granting plaintiff's motion and denying defendants' cross motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. Plaintiff was injured while he was helping to guide a 45-foot metal bar with a tag line that was wrapped around his hand. At that time, the tag line became wedged in a gap in the hand rail and tightened around plaintiff's hand, causing severe injuries. Because plaintiff's injury was not the result of a fall from a height or a falling object, his Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action must be dismissed (see, Shaffer v Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 167 A.D.2d 824, 825, appeal dismissed 77 N.Y.2d 835; see also, Root v County of Onondaga, 174 A.D.2d 1014; Staples v Town of Amherst, 146 A.D.2d 292).


Summaries of

Oakes v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Oct 4, 1991
176 A.D.2d 1240 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

Oakes v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation

Case Details

Full title:JAMES OAKES, Respondent, v. NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION et al.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Oct 4, 1991

Citations

176 A.D.2d 1240 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
576 N.Y.S.2d 735

Citing Cases

Soles v. Eastman Kodak Co.

Plaintiff Soles was neither. In any event, the mere association of an accident with the force of gravity does…

Lawrence v. Finch Pruyn Co., Inc.

However, his attempt remains too disjointed to satisfy the "falling worker or objects" test. See also Oakes…