CompFox AI Summary
The plaintiff, an employee of Olympic Fence & Railing Co., Inc., sustained personal injuries after falling from an A-frame ladder while engaged in moving a fence within the defendant's warehouse. The Supreme Court, Queens County, granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) and denied the defendant's cross-motion to dismiss claims under Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6). The defendant appealed this order. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that the work, involving the removal and reinstallation of a bolted fence, constituted an alteration and construction work within the meaning of the Labor Law sections. The court also rejected the defendant's argument that the plaintiff's actions were the sole proximate cause of the injuries and found no merit in the defendant's contentions regarding the timeliness of the supplemental bill of particulars for Industrial Code violations.
Rico-Castro v. Do & Co New York Catering, Inc. is a workers' compensation case decided in Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York. This case addresses legal issues related to compensation claims, benefits, and court rulings.
It is commonly referenced in legal research involving workers' compensation laws in Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Full Decision Text1 Pages
The plaintiff, an employee of Olympic Fence & Railing Co., Inc., sustained personal injuries after falling from an A-frame ladder while engaged in moving a fence within the defendant's warehouse. The Supreme Court, Queens County, granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) and denied the defendant's cross-motion to dismiss claims under Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6). The defendant appealed this order. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that the work, involving the removal and reinstallation of a bolted fence, constituted an "alteration" and "construction work" within the meaning of the Labor Law sections. The court also rejected the defendant's argument that the plaintiff's actions were the sole proximate cause of the injuries and found no merit in the defendant's contentions regarding the timeliness of the supplemental bill of particulars for Industrial Code violations.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.