The New York Court of Appeals provided greater clarity to the concept of proximate cause in Robinson v. East Medical Center, LP et.al., (April 4, 2006). In this case, the plaintiff fell when he was attempting to install rods from the top of a six-foot ladder he knew to be too short to adequately reach the proper height. He also knew that the work site had taller ladders available to him, although they were in use elsewhere at the time. The Court ruled that, “(p) laintiff’s own negligent actions – choosing to use a six-foot ladder that he knew was too short for the work to be accomplished and then standing on the ladder’s cap in order to reach the work – were, as a matter of law, the sole proximate cause of his injuries.” The Court was not persuaded by the fact that the plaintiff had specifically requested an eight- foot ladder from his supervisor immediately before the accident. Additionally, he could have waited for one to become available before beginning the task, or he could have performed a different task altogether.

In Freeman v. Ryan ,et.al. (4th Dept., March 17, 2006) the Fourth Department granted partial summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff under New York Labor Law § 240(1), despite the fact that the defendants owned the home where the plaintiff was allegedly injured. The Court denied the defendants the protection of the statute’s homeowner exemption because the defendants had not lived in the residence for the previous seven years, instead utilizing it as rental property. Furthermore, the house was unoccupied at the time of the injury, due to a fire that necessitated the work being performed.

In Baptiste v. New York City Transit Authority, (1st Dept., April 27, 2006), the plaintiff was a passenger on a New York City bus that became stuck during a particularly hard snowfall. As a result, the passengers were instructed to exit the bus and await a second bus that was redirected to pick them up. After the passengers waited about twenty minutes, a second bus arrived. While walking a short distance to the second bus, the plaintiff was injured when she slipped and fell on snow and ice. The plaintiff sued the Transit Authority, alleging that its failure to equip the bus with snow chains was the proximate cause of her injuries. The Court disagreed, ruling that, “(i)n this case, the claimed negligence, i.e., failing to equip the bus with snow tires or chains, would have merely furnished the condition or occasion for the bus to become stranded; it was not the cause of plaintiff's subsequent slip and fall.” As a result, the Appellate Division overturned a jury verdict of $450,000.00 and entered judgment in favor of the defendants.

In Sanley v. Nowak, (4th Dept., April 28, 2006), the Appellate Division reversed the trial court’s order of partial summary judgment against the defendants as to the negligence of the defendant operator. The trial court had granted the plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment based upon the fact that the defendants' vehicle had skidded out of control, across the center line and into the path of the oncoming plaintiff, hence causing the accident. The Court found that, “such conduct is only prima facie evidence of negligence ...; it does not mandate a finding of negligence. Such evidence, together with the explanation given by (defendant), presents factual questions for determination by the jury.” While the Appellate Division agreed with the trial court’s ruling that the emergency doctrine defense was not available to the defendants, it nevertheless ruled that the defendants were entitled to argue that their conduct was “reasonable under the circumstances.”