« New York Court of Appeals Grants Leave on Evidentiary Issue Within Medical Malpractice Context | Main | New Addition to New York Blogosphere »

December 20, 2005

Comments

Nicole Black

When I read this decision a few days ago, it seemed a harsh conclusion to me as well. However, upon reading the Court of Appeal's cases cited in your post, it does appear to be in keeping with their prior decisions.

In Joblon, the Court of Appeals stated, by way of comparison, that "Joblon did more than the routine act of standing on a ladder to hang a clock on a wall." It would seem to me that the activity engaged in by the plaintiff in Anderson was equivalent to hanging a clock on the wall, and thus did not fall within the ambit of LL s. 240(1).

However, like you, I'm not entirely convinced that this line of decisions is in keeping with the original legislative intent.

The comments to this entry are closed.