Shaklee Mindworks is here to save your Christmas! Improve your focus, memory and reaction time starting today plus free membership and shipping!
Back in August Roger Barnett the CEO of Shaklee partnered with Maria Shriver, an advocate for brain research in a quest to touch a million minds. To make that happen Shaklee is offering a great deal for you to try out Mindworks for yourself.
Have questions about Shaklee Mindworks?
If you have questions or need more information feel free to click here – send me a message and I will get in touch with you. Make sure you tune in December 3rd to Dr. Phil to find out more about Shaklee Mindworks and Shaklee's new groundbreaking research on cognitive health.
Shaklee Mindworks is here. Improve memory, focus and reaction time starting today.
If you are like well… basically everyone you would probably love some help with stress, concentration and maybe remembering where you put your keys? It's true we all struggle with feeling fatigued or unfocused from time to time. Some more than others.
Well, I have good news for you. Shaklee has recently launched a supplement developed to support both short term and long term cognitive health. In fact it will be featured in the next month on Dr. Phil. In fact Shaklee Mindworks was just launched and it is taking over the world one brain at a time. Shaklee has been on the cutting edge of science and nutrition for 100 years and this is no different.
So what is Shaklee Mindworks?
Shaklee Mindworks is an incredible breakthrough in brain health. So many people have struggled with the subject of brain as our life spans have changed. Shaklee has strived for years to bring our health span closer to our life span and has been successful with many different types of products. In recent years science has made huge advances that have changed the way we now address and think about brain health. We now understand a lot more about what contributes to mental decline as we age.
Research has shown that just like the rest of our bodies or brain needs exercise and nutrition. The problem is no one really knew how to do that. Finding out how to fix the problems in our brain started first with finding out what made us decline with age.
Of all the things that were found the one that surprised me the most was that your brain starts to decline as early as age 20. Scary I know! Research found that our neuro connections start to decline around that age and then the process accelerates with age.
Why is Shaklee Mindworks so important for YOU?
It doesn't take a scientist to know that your brain makes you who you are. Every aspect of you is determined by your brain. Your personality, your reactions … literally everything. So it only makes sense that if you want to be your best you that you must take care of your brain. The problem is until a few years ago no one really knew how.
What has been put together in this new formula is a blend that will give your brain exactly what it needs. This is going to improve your sharpness and focus and also protect you against age related decline that has been found. It will also improve memory, focus and your reaction time something that I think at any age you would like to improve, I know I would :).It contributes to healthy circulation which is a key factor in brain health.
If you want all the science behind it be sure you check out the video above. When it comes down to it Shaklee Mindworks combines the right nutrition and our brain training software to give you everything you need to start working on your cognitive health today.
Harley Pasternak Body Reset Diet author and trainer to the stars partners with Shaklee 180. Find out if the Shaklee 180 program is right for you.
I have been in love with the Shaklee 180™ program since it's launch but of course I know I am partial. I love so many Shaklee products. I was so excited to Harley Pasternak, trainer behind countless celebrity bodies including Lady Gaga, Megan Fox, Jennifer Hudson, Hilary Duff (post baby body ), Katy Perry, Halle Berry and Jessica Simpson (yes the list could go on but I had to stop somewhere) would not only endorse but be using the Shaklee 180 products.
I realize it's not odd to see celebrity endorsements of any weight loss plan. After all, it's always big news when the new Jenny Craig spokesman is named or Weight Watchers but they are celebrities. To have someone who career and reputation depends on results spoke volumes to me!
So, Who is Harley Pasternak?
Harley Pasternak is a best selling author, a renowned fitness and nutrition expert and he definitely has the education to back it. With a Masters of Science in Exercise Physiology and Nutritional Sciences from the University of Toronto, and an Honors Degree in Kinesiology from the University of Western Ontario, his books have been published in international markets in twelve languages worldwide.
He's been seen all over the media over the years stressing the importance of healthy weight loss. He has been seen on The View, VH1, CNN, E!, Rachael Ray, The Oprah Winfrey Show to name a few and makes regular appearances on ABC's Good Morning America and NBC's Today show. He's been very vocal about the dangers of rapid weight loss shows and has helped Jacqui McCoy, winner of Extreme Makeover Weight Loss Edition winner in her own Shaklee 180 Turnaround™.
What makes Shaklee 180 so successful?
After being successful on the show Jacqui McCoy went on to struggle with keeping the weight off and her health on track when she no longer had the support like she did on the show nor the TIME. Slowly but surely she put weight back on. She was also looking not for a diet but for a way change her life. Find something that she could do everyday, that was not a huge change in lifestyle.
Shaklee 180 was able to do that for her and she just recently had a baby :). For more information on Shaklee 180 click here.
Shaklee Cinch Is Now Shaklee 180!!
Shaklee's much loved Cinch weight loss plan now becomes Shaklee 180!! What's the reason for the change?? Find out here.
It's now simple to lose weight naturally with the new Shaklee weight loss program, Shaklee 180. With unheard of tools and support that can't be found anywhere else you now have everything you need to not only hit your goal but make a life change.
So many people have dealt with the endless diet cycle for years with little to no result. The few who do get results find it very hard to keep the weight off because they had to endure massive life changes to lose the weight that they simply just can't maintain.
It was with all that in mind that the #1 natural nutrition company in the United States, Shaklee set out to launch the Shaklee 180 Diet.
With so many weight loss products on the market it's understandable many consumers just aren't sure what to try anymore and resort end up falling victim to all the hype that surrounds the natural weight loss industry.
With a 50+ year history in the health and wellness industry a Shaklee weight loss program isn't anything new. They have had the science for years with their Shaklee Cinch Products, but last year they decided to take that science a step further and come up with a complete program that anyone could follow.
It's been called weight loss ….. for the rest of us.
So what's the difference between Shaklee Cinch And Shaklee 180???
It's a very simple answer… the program, not the products. You see the Cinch weight loss program was a great way to lose weight but as a company Shaklee realized people needed more than just the products to truly change their lives.
You should be able to lose weight and be able to keep if off without feeling like you were giving up everything.
This is where Shaklee 180 was born….
It's been proven over and over again it's much easier to reach a goal if you have a group of people working towards a common goal together. That's just how our brains work as humans:). This is why programs like Weight Watchers have had success over the years. They provide support and we all need support especially when tackling something you feel is getting the best of you.
So taking the science behind the Shaklee Cinch program and combining it with what we all need they were able to create a great new healthy weight loss plan.
90 days to lose the weight & 90 days to learn how to keep it off.
You may be thinking yeah that sounds simple but how is this any different than anything else?
Many companies just simply don't have the science to back their products. The ingredients are really no different than something you could buy at your local super market just masked in another name.
Shaklee products have fueled countless Olympians, NASA Astronauts and athletes for decades. They were able to take the data they learned from hydrating and fueling these athletes and use that same science to make a weight loss plan that would work for anyone.
Now if you are like me you may be wondering what do athletes and weight loss have in common??? When an athlete is training it's very important that they maintain their lean muscle mass. All of the Shaklee sports nutrition products are made with a powerful amino acid that can not be manufactured in the body called leucine.
To cut a lot of fancy scientific rambling the reason leucine is important is this… you burn fat not muscle. This makes a huge difference in weight loss because of two things… Reason #1 – look at the image to the left.. fat takes up a LOT more room in your body than muscle (make your bigger). Reason #2 – Your muscle drives your metabolism. You need that metabolism kicked into gear!!! You don't want to be LOSING it!
So all science stuff aside. Here's what the launch of Shaklee 180 means. They are still amazing products just packaged in an ENTIRE program. The Shaklee Cinch program was a great way to lose weight. My husband and I both used it a couple of years ago to lose weight. I lost 22 pounds and he was able to lose over 30 pounds both in a 90 day period so I came into the 180 program knowing all the science behind the products and the effectiveness of them. I also knew that we could continue to eat …. wait for it….. wait for it…. REGULAR FOOD!!
Shocker I know :). We didn't have to change our entire lives to get the results we wanted.
What makes Shaklee 180 any different?
So at this point you are probably wondering why the different name and what makes this program any different??
It's the program. Like I said before 90 days to lose the weight and 90 days to learn how keep it off. That can't be done just with products. The tools and support that are offered are something I have never seen in any other online weight loss programs or offline for that matter and you don't have to just eat their products to lose weight or use the tools.
Here's a little preview what you are provided with to really help YOU change YOUR LIFE.
Your own online site and mobile App – With our Shaklee 180 Mobile App you can log easily and keep track of your progress on the go. You can upload photos, take notes and it's fully customizable to your weight loss needs.
Online support forum – Connect with thousands of other users for support, advice and to cheer each other on.
Weekly emails for health advice, support, exercise and recipe tips, and more—to keep you moving towards your goals.
Now here's the fun part ….
Win weekly prizes Just for logging your food and exercise. It's so easy too. You can even scan the bar code on many items.
Every week 25 people win a variety of prizes, the grand prize being a trip to Paris. The more things you track each week the higher your chances of winning :).
Earn free products – By referring others your can get your products for free. In fact just helping just 3 others take the Shaklee 180 challenge you will get your kit free :).
That's made pretty simple since Shaklee 180 is integrated in with social media. It will be really easy to share right on your Facebook page how great you are doing. It won't take long before friends are asking you how you are doing it!
One more great perk is by committing to have your products sent to you on autoship you will get free shipping for 3 months and to reward you for sticking with the program you will get $100 of free Shaklee products.
There are so many great things I could say about the Shaklee 180 weight loss plan but I think I'll let you see for yourself. You can find many success stories by clicking here.
Getting started with the Shaklee 180 program is really easy. Here's what will happen after you sign up.
Your products will get to your door in the next 3-5 days.
You get access to all the daily support you need. Workouts, recipes and encouragement!!
You'll start loosing those inches and start to finally see a change in your life. You will have more energy, feel better and grab a huge self esteem boost.
If you have any questions you can get in touch with me right away. Just click here and send me a message.
If for any reason a Shaklee Product is not satisfactory you can exchange it or return it for a full refund.
Ready to get started? Fill out the ENTIRE form and I will get you all the Shaklee 180 information that is best for your weight loss situation.
Shaklee Basic H2 is one of the most versatile non toxic cleaning products on the market. Here are some tips to use it to it's best ability today.
Shaklee Basic H2 has got to be the most versatile of all of the non toxic cleaning products on the market today. I would even include vinegar in that list! Or course vinegar has some great perks but very few people are even aware that there is an actual alternative when they are looking for non toxic cleaning products. There are just too many products on the market today claiming to be healthy and aren't it causes most people to be skeptical.
Shaklee Basic h2 actually has evolved over the years. It was originally released in 1960 as one of the first non-toxic biodegradable cleaning products on the market. Back then there wasn't a push to go green but the company behind Basic H2 was on the cutting edge of the "green" movement. Basic H2 is produced by a green company called Shaklee. The company was not traditionally known for their cleaning products. They are the #1 natural nutrition company in the United States. Obviously health is very important to the company and years before the mainstream worried about it Dr. Shaklee (the founder of the company) was aware of the harmful side effects of the cleaners at that time emerging onto the market at the time.
I could go on forever about this , BUT what I really want to talk to you about is the many Basic H2 Uses. It's been around for so long consumers have come up with countless ways to use this product that aren't listed on the bottle and are definitely not things you would think about doing with any cleaning product. I have put together a list of 50+ uses for Shaklee Basic H2. To download your copy click here.
Non toxic cleaning products can be hard to find but there are many good alternatives out there. I would encourage you to make sure you really do your homework and ensure you are getting a "green" cleaner and it is from a green company. If you are like me you just want what is healthy for your family, in this case it just happens to be the lower cost alternative too! I love when that happens. I've had so much fun putting together all these great uses and I realized that there are many uses for the entire Shaklee Get Clean ® product line. I put together a fun (free) webinar that can show you some great ways to use non toxic cleaning products, the Get Clean line and Shaklee Basic H2. Why you need them and some easy ways to save money on them too! You can grab your spot by clicking here.
So final question I always get… Do I still use vinegar? Yep! But only as a last resort!! That's how confident I am with Shaklee Basic H2 and all of the other Shaklee Get Clean ® products.
Are you looking for a Shaklee independent distributor? You have stopped by the right place. Take a look around and feel free to get in touch with me if you have any questions.
If you are looking for a Shaklee Independent Distributor you have come to the right place! I am a very active and busy mom with two great kids and three great dogs (I consider them my kids as well… but what dog owner doesn't :). I have found not only for myself but in being a mother that prevention is the best medicine. Hands down. I think it would be hard to find anyone that would disagree. Like many others health issues brought me to Shaklee and I love that being a Shaklee independent distributor allows me to help other families turn their lives around.
We have been using Shaklee products for 6 years and I am thrilled to be able to offer you advice and information about these great Shaklee products. As a Shaklee independent distributor I pride myself in my ability to listen to others so if there is anything you are struggling with or maybe have a stain you don't know how to remove that is what I am here for. You can also take a look around the site and see some great tips that I have found over the years.
As a Shaklee independent distributor I am thrilled to be able to offer high quality products that are not only safe but effective. I love being able to help people and help them navigate their way to a healthier life for their families. While there are some great products lines there are a few that are my favorite as you can tell by looking around but I have not found a product YET that I didn't love. My job is to help others live their best life possible and I love being able to do that.
Our products are always safe, always green and always work. Our nutritional supplements are backed with solid science and enhance people's health. That's why I trust Shaklee and love being a Shaklee independent distributor. If you are new and wondering about the products you don't have to worry our products are backed by a 100% money back guarantee.
What do I love best about being a Shaklee independent distributor?
Now I will confess there are some great products lines but there are a few that are my favorite as you will be able to tell by looking around the site. However, I have not found a product YET that I didn't love. My job is to help others live their best life possible and I love being able to do that. Our products are always safe, always green and always work. Our nutritional supplements are backed with solid science and enhance people's health. That's why I trust Shaklee and love being a Shaklee independent distributor. If you are new and wondering about the products you don't have to worry our products are backed by a 100% money back guarantee.
If you have any questions feel free to click the contact us tab at the top of the site and we will get back with you as soon as possible. If you have products that you love feel free to leave a testimonial too. I love hearing how much others love the products too.
Oh and don't forget to sign up for my free newsletter and you will get some great tips each month along with an entry in my free products drawing. You will find the registration on the right side of the webpage.
P.S. If you have any questions about becoming a Shaklee independent distributor you can also click the contact us tab and send me a message. I will get back with you as soon as possible.
Non Toxic Cleaning Products – Why Use Them?
Are non toxic cleaning products really worth it? Here's a quick run down to help you decide for yourself.
Non toxic cleaning products have been all over the news but many people ask "What's the big deal? We've been using these cleaners for years." I want to give you a really simple answer today. I want you to do me a favor … yeah I know starting out asking for favors:) Stop right now and take 5 minutes. Go and grab just a few of your regular household cleaners. It can be all purpose cleaners, disinfectants, dish washing detergent, bathroom cleaners really any cleaner that you want. Grab a few of them and bring them back to your computer and just take a few minutes and look at the labels.
Chances are if you read the labels for just a few seconds you will find words like WARNING, DANGER or CAUTION. Now you may be thinking well they seem to work so what's the big deal. Today I'm going to tell you! You see at one point I had no idea that there was a need for non toxic cleaning products and didn't even know they were around. I was like every other Mom who just had always thought you keep your house clean and everyone will be healthy. I had young kids with little viruses coming home all the time so staying on top of my "germ killing" was a must, or so I thought. In fact I actually was obsessed with it because I had a son that had horrible indoor allergies. After years of tests and specialists the only guess anyone could ever give me was he must be allergic to dust. Even though he was on 6 doses of allergy medicine a day I thought it would only get worse if I didn't stay on top of things.
What do my son's allergies have to do with non toxic cleaning products?
Well you see about 5 years ago I happened to be watching Oprah on Earth Day. I heard a story about a family who had a child very similar to my son's and they had found it was their cleaning products that had caused his illness. I honestly had never even heard of such a thing. I was really intrigued by the story and did try out the products and long story short…. my son wasn't allergic to dust. It was my cleaning products!!!
With a little research I learned just how scary the products we use are. I really had no idea and with the staticis I found it was very easy for me to answer the question so many people ask.
The bottom line is we aren't fine! The rates of childhood asthma, cancer, ADD, ADHD (that's just to name a few) have skyrocketed over the last 20 years and one of the reasons tied to this is the use of cleaning products with harmful toxins in them.
Shaklee Cleaning Products – Why Are They Different?
Shaklee cleaning products have been popping up everywhere. Here are some facts that you may not know.
What most people don't understand is our cleaning products are all over our homes. They cover our tables, counter tops, floors, every piece of furniture we have and they also constantly float through the air throughout our homes.
Many people start looking at Shaklee cleaning products once they realize the results of these toxins. There are many health problems that are a direct result of inhaling standard cleaning products and with little to no regulation on chemicals constantly being added to conventional cleaning products we have seen respiratory health deteriorate even further.
It's no wonder these products cause so many health problems. No one really pays attention to them. Most companies don't even need to report most of the ingredients in their products because they can just say they are "trade secrets". This all just spells danger to me.
I realized that so many people live their lives in "domestic ignorant bliss". They aren't even aware of what they are putting into their homes. Even once you figure out there is a problems how do you know who to trust? That's where Shaklee cleaning products come in.
Shaklee cleaning products have been around for years. In fact, Dr. Shaklee created the first bio-degradable cleaner back in 1960 so that's over 50 years. Shaklee the company has been Shaklee was "green" before "going green" was a term we had ever even heard of. While they have a lot of amazing products Shaklee cleaning products are my favorite.
Shaklee has not just been a pioneer with their Shaklee cleaning products but also in environmental stewardship and in support of social causes. Shaklee has a 50-year legacy of sustainable and socially responsible business practices.
They have supported numerous Polar expeditions to measure the impact of climate change. Even the corporate headquarters, an award-winning building featuring energy-efficient designs and sustainable resource materials, reflects the company's commitment to protecting the environment.
What's The Best Part Of Shaklee Cleaning Products?
I love to save a dime. I'm not afraid to admit I am a thrifty mom and Shaklee cleaning products save me money. I thought that switching to non-toxic cleaners would cost me more but with Shaklee cleaning products I found that I actually save money… in fact a lot of money. It's even cheaper than using vinegar to clean with!
In fact…. want to see how "Shaklee cleaning products" compare to the price of other cleaners? Click here to see.
Here's what you need to know about Shaklee cleaning products.
If you would like more information on the Shaklee cleaning products you can click the link below and view the current specials I have running for them. Shaklee cleaning products come with a 100% money back guarantee.


My parents moved from Perth to Canberra before I was born, leaving family and friends behind. Once they had children of their own they realised that they'd left all the family traditions associated with Christmas, Easter and the like behind them too. If we (the kids) were going to have family traditions, they'd have to start their own.
In the beginning, at Easter, my family would have a great time decorating boiled eggs and then we'd eat them. Over the years, though, we all got a bit carried away with the decorating bit, and soon the eggs were getting too good to smash. My parents decided to start blowing the eggs so that we could keep our masterpieces.
The table conversion built my dad.
Now there are more than 1500 blown and decorated eggs in the collection, all of which come out on display for Easter. My dad has even built a special frame to fit over their dining table so that we can display as many eggs on the table as possible.
Coming up with an idea that hasn't been done before is getting tricky!


Austrian law graduate Max Schrems has started his data privacy lawsuit against Facebook, in a case that could prove pivotal to the way the social networking giant handles data.
The lawsuit alleges that Facebook undertakes "illegal" tracking of user data under EU law. This includes Facebook's monitoring of users when they use the social network's "like" buttons.
Schrems also claims that Facebook co-operated with the PRISM surveillance programme of the US National Security Agency (NSA).
The case has been brought against Facebook's European headquarters in Dublin, as that unit registers all accounts outside the United States and Canada.
Thousands of Facebook users around the world have joined the lawsuit. Schrems however has limited the claimants to just 25,000 users (900 in the UK alone), but it is reported that a further 55,000 users have already registered to join the proceedings at a later stage.
Each of the 25,000 plaintiffs is claiming €500 (£360) in damages from Facebook.
The court case began Thursday with Facebook's lawyers reportedly presenting a long list of procedural objections to the class action. Essentially, they don't believe the lawsuit is admissible under Austrian law.
Schrems in turn has accused Facebook of delaying tactics. "This is a typical strategy, because most consumers will run out of time and money," he was quoted as saying.
The judge meanwhile said he would prepare a written decision on whether the court can handle the lawsuit before the summer.
The Austrian lawsuit is the latest twist in a long-running saga.
Max Schrems has previously filed an official complaint against Facebook with the Irish data regulator. In that complaint, he argued that the Edward Snowden disclosures showed there is no effective data protection regime in the United States.
Indeed, Schrems has previously said that the Snowden revelations reveal that agreed privacy practices are being ignored by Facebook and other tech firms.
Schrems then appealed to the Irish High Court. But in June 2014, the Irish High Court referred the decision up the ladder to the Europe's highest court, the European Court of Justice (ECJ).
Last month the ECJ said it was considering the current data sharing agreement between America and Europe.
The current Safe Harbour deal has been in place since 2000, and effectively allows US firms such as Google and Facebook to collect data on their European users, as long as certain principles around storage and security are upheld.
That ECJ decision on the agreement is expected on 24 June, with the ECJ making its final decision after that.
Following the NSA spying revelations. Where do you store your data?


I can't speak to those chapters, but pledging is going to have a significant in-person time commitment. Count on *at least* 3-4 meetings or activities per week.
If your son is serious about this, he's presumably an adult and can handle his own affairs. I can't imagine any group would offer a bid to someone whose parent did all of his research and leg work for him.


text:
Labor Law Pointers - Volume IV, No. 7
From the Editor:
Situation giving you consternation, give us a call for verification, do it from anywhere in the nation, we will answer and even invite you for a libation.
Keep those calls and emails coming, it makes our day. I freely admit to being a lousy poet, but I actually do understand most labor law issues and love looking for answers to the rest.
Jennifer Ehman will not be answering any situational questions for the next few months, we congratulate Jennifer and her husband Mike on the birth of their daughter, Charlotte, all four of them, including big sister Ella, are doing great.
I have been asked several times in the past month how to access our prior analysis of cases; our website has a searchable catalogue of all the past issues. I have added the link here for your ease of access. http://www.hurwitzfine.com/listnews.php?type=labor.
Remember that our big sister publication, Coverage Pointers, is also available. Dan Kohane's newsletter addresses all issues coverage related and much more, including baseball lore. It is well worth reading, not only informative but also very interesting. Anyone wishing to subscribe to Coverage Pointers can drop Dan an email at [email protected] to be added to the distribution list. The link for the Coverage Pointers, with its own catalogue of past issues is;
http://www.hurwitzfine.com/listnews.php?type=coverage.
I urge you to contact us if you have any interest in some labor law training, we do webinars or in person visits to carriers or other groups with sessions anywhere from an hour to 3 or 4 hours depending on how in depth you want the training to be. We cover all topics Labor Law related. We have this month done investigating the labor law case, the basics of the sole proximate cause defense and the elements of a labor law case for some of our claims partners and next month we will be doing more including risk transfer, contractual indemnification, common law indemnification and additional insured status. While the planned seminars are for specific groups we would do open sessions if there was interest. Let me know if there is a topic you would like to have us do a webinar covering, we are always happy to do it.
Some interesting cases for you in this month's newsletter, including two from the Court of Appeals, but please, if you notice a sharp decrease in the quality of Jennifer Ehman's analysis of the 241(6) cases do not mention it to her. She is out taking care of Charlotte so I did them for her and do not want her to think I lowered her high standards while covering her beat.
Hope you enjoy this month's edition, I do have a picture for your review, please let me know if you think that if the plaintiff fell from the bucket that he would have a valid 240(1) claim. Answer in next month's edition.
Thanks for your interest.
David R. Adams
Suite 1300 Liberty Building
Labor Law Pointers is published the first Wednesday of each month. If you know of others who may wish to subscribe to this free publication, please feel free to forward it. If you wish to subscribe or unsubscribe, please send an e-mail to [email protected] or call the Editor/Labor Law Team Leader David R. Adams directly at (716) 849-8916.
Siguenza v Cemusa, Inc.
Siguenza was climbing down from a truck after breaking up concrete in its bed was he fell and was injured. His employer was hired to excavate part of a sidewalk in Queens. The trial court denied Siguenza summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action. At trial, the jury found in favor of defendants, finding no violation of the statute. The jury did find a violation of § 241(6) but determined said violation was not a proximate cause of the accident.
Labor Law § 240(1) (DRA)
The Second Department held "the plaintiff cannot be regarded as a person employed" to perform an enumerated activity under the statute because, although his employer was engaged to erect a bus shelter, no work on that structure had yet begun. The court noted that Siguenza was not going to perform such work as his crew only worked on demolition and restoration of a sidewalk.
PRACTICE POINT: You need to look at the overall project to determine if the plaintiff is a person "so employed" in an enumerated project, not simply if the task being undertaken is one which exposed him to an elevation related risk. Here the plaintiff was not engaged is a project which qualified as his work was not part of the construction project.
Labor Law § 241(6) (JAE)
The jury determined, based on the credibility of the witnesses, that the plaintiff had available an alternate means for descending from the truck and that thus a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(f) was not a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries. Thus, in spite of a finding by the jury that the defendant violated that regulation, the existence of an alternative means of descending from the truck allowed the jury to find that the violation was not a proximate cause of the injury producing fall. On appeal the court can only overturn the decision of the jury when there is no fair interpretation of the evidence which would allow the jury to render its verdict, which did not exist here.
Nicometi v Vineyards of Fredonia, LLC
Nicometi was injured while installing insulation in the ceilings of a newly constructed apartment building owned by defendants. To complete his task, Nicometi wore stilts to reach the 9 to 10 foot high ceiling. He claimed that while swinging a hammer above his head, he stepped forward with one foot to affix insulation on the ceiling rafters and slipped on ice. He testified that he knew about the ice before he fell but that his supervisor directed him to work regardless. The supervisor, however, claimed that he, and not Nicometi, had first noticed the ice and told him not to insulate above the icy area.
Nicometi moved for summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim and defendant cross-moved to dismiss that claim, contending the injuries were caused by "an ordinary construction site danger"; ice and not an elevation-related hazard. The trial court held the statute applied because the incident resulted from an elevation-related risk, and no question of fact existed on sole proximate cause despite the instruction not to insulate on the ceiling above the ice.
The Fourth Department's majority and two-justice dissent agreed that the statute applied because the stilts elevating Nicometi "failed" as he worked and thus defendants' motion was properly denied. However, the court was split on sole proximate cause issue and the dissent concluded that Nicometi was still entitled to summary judgment.
The Court of Appeals reversed based on Melber v 6333 Main St., 91 NY2d 759 (1998), where plaintiff was standing on stilts installing metal studs in the top of a drywall when he went to grab a tool. He "tripped over electrical conduit protruding from the unfinished floor and fell" while walking. The Court held "the protective equipment envisioned by the statute is simply not designed to avert the hazard plaintiff encountered here"; electrical conduit sticking out of the floor; and distinguished the same situation except for the fact that the stilts failed while plaintiff was installing the studs.
The issue here is whether the hazard on the stilts was a separate hazard "wholly unrelated to the hazard which brought about the need for a safety device in the first instance." In Nieves v Five Boro A.C. & Refrig. Corp., 93 NY2d 914 (1999), plaintiff stepped off a ladder with one foot and tripped over a portable light, and the Court held the statute did not apply because the injury was caused by a "usual and ordinary danger" at the site "distinct and unrelated to the elevation-related risk that called for the ladder in the first instance." In Cohen, the Court of Appeals held that a plaintiff who tripped over the pipes and fell while descending a ladder was not entitled to statutory protections.
Here, the Court held Nicometi's incident was caused by a separate hazard – ice – unrelated to any elevation risk. The majority distinguished Striegel,where plaintiff fell because his foot slid down a roof 15-20 feet and the court held the hazard could have been avoided by the use of "toe boards" to provide a flat path for plaintiff to traverse.
Thus, the Court held Nicometi could not recover here because his injuries resulted from a slip on ice, which is a separate hazard unrelated to the elevation risk that necessitated the provision of a safety device in the first place. Chief Judge Lippman dissented, holding stilts placed on ice create the same "elevated-related risk" as to ladders and thus, the statute applies to Nicometi's injuries.
PRACTICE POINT: This case allows us to explore a basic issue in labor law: was the injury brought on by the failure of absence of a safety device and was the risk which brought about the accident and injury the type that the statute was designed to protect against? Here, the risk that caused the fall and injury was the ice, a risk that had nothing to do with an elevation risk. In fact, the court stated that the stilts themselves did not have any defects and played no part in causing the fall in that the fall was caused solely by the ice.
The dissent by Judge Lippman misses the point, holding that if Nicometi had been on a ladder and the ladder placed on the ice it would have been a labor law case citing to Klein. My opinion is that he misses the point that the plaintiff in Klein was on a ladder he placed on a slippery substance and when the ladder slid out he fell. The instant case is different in that the stilts are not placed; they are simply a method of moving about the work site to work at a higher level and thus they are not "placed". Remember that § 240(1) calls for the safety devices, and both ladders and stilts qualify, that they "shall be so constructed anywhere, placed and operated as to give proper protection to a person so employed" (emphasis added). Therefore, as the stilts are not placed, but are rather used to move about the site, the analogy to the ladder is not accurate.
Saint v Syracuse Supply Co.
Saint was part of a three-person crew working to replace an advertisement on a billboard 59 feet from the ground, and composed of a two-sided metal frame constructed in an inverted "V" shape set on a metal tube embedded in the ground. Each side of the frame is 14 X 48 feet in size, and covered by a series of panels secured to the frame by iron clips called "stingers." The billboard has catwalks workers access by a ladder elevated several feet from ground and attached externally to the metal tube. All the catwalks have safety cables, but only the lower rear catwalks have a guardrail.
The new advertisement required attachment of additions to the frame, referred to as "extensions" and are plywood cutouts. During Saint's work, he used and operated a crane to raise the extensions onto the billboard's lower outer catwalk. Had the job gone smoothly, after the new advertisement was secure the crew would bolt the extensions' angle irons to the stringers to hold them in place on the frame. However, Saint fell while attempting to move the panels on the lower rear catwalk when a "strong gust of wind" caused the panel to strike his chest, knocking him ten feet below after he detached his lanyard from the catwalk's safety cable to get around a crew member.
The trial court denied defendant's motion to dismiss Saint's Labor Law §§ 240(1), 240(2) and 241(6) arguing that Saint was not engaged in a covered activity. Saint cross-moved for partial summary judgment on his §§ 240(1) and 241(6) claims. The trial court denied both motions finding both provisions applied to Saint's claims, but an issue of fact existed as to whether he was the sole proximate cause of his injuries for failing to reconnect his lanyard.
The Fourth Department reversed and granted defendant's motion, concluding that Saint's work did not constitute altering the building or structure and was "more akin to cosmetic maintenance or decorative modification." The court also found Saint was not engaged in "construction" work within the meaning of § 241(6).
Saint argued on appeal the statute applied because he physically altered the billboard by installing extensions that changed the physical shape of the structure. Defendant responded that at the time of his fall, Saint was not engaged in the installation or removal of extensions and regardless, the work was not an alteration by changing advertisements which is routine maintenance, and any alleged change to the structure was not permanent.
The Court held Saint was engaged in work constituting an alteration under the statute, relying on Joblon's definition that "altering … requires making a significant physical change to the configuration or composition of the building or structure." Here, Saint's work involved attaching extensions that changed the dimensions of the billboards frame and transformed the shape to accommodate the advertisement's artwork. The court held the removal of panels was a prerequisite to the attachment of the extensions and thus, Saint's work entailed a significant change to the billboard structure and did not involve simple tasks involving minimal work.
The Court further held the installation was not a "decorative modification" because the work entailed far more than a mere "change to the outward appearance of the billboard" as it required a change to the billboard's size and an adjustment of the frame to accommodate the unique shape of the advertisement. The Court distinguished Munoz v DJZ Realty, which held that an employee injured while working on a billboard was not involved in an "alteration" because the employee was applying pre-pasted sheets to a billboard and the court concluded the work merely "changed the outward appearance … but did not change the billboard's structure."
Here, Saint's work required attachment of metal bolts and attachment of the extension to the frame. The court thus found that based on the nature of Saint's work and that the attachment of extensions to the billboard affected a significant change to the structure, Saint's work was "altering" within the meaning of the statute.
The Court also held it was error to dismiss the Labor Law § 240(2), requiring that "[s]caffolding or staging more than twenty feet from the ground or floor … shall have a safety rail of suitable material properly attached, bolted, braced or otherwise secured …" Here, it was undisputed the billboard platform was 59 feet high and there was no safety railing around the subject catwalk.
PRACTICE POINT: The point the Court of Appeals was careful to make is they are not modifying the status of the law with regard to the changing of the billboard sign, but in a situation such as this where the structure of the sign is changed, a significant change to the structure to use the Joblon language yet again and that is simply more than a cosmetic change.
The Court also held that Saint was engaged in "construction work" under the statute, which is defined to include alteration of a structure under 12 NYCRR § 23-1.4(b)(13). Here, Saint was altering the billboard by installing the extension at the time of his injury and therefore, his claim falls within the ambit of § 241(6). The Court distinguished Hatfieldbecause Saint was altering the billboard's dimensions in order to apply the advertisement rather than performing "maintenance of a building or structure outside of the construction context." Thus, the Court denied defendant's motion to dismiss this claim.
Guanopatin v Flushing Acquisition Holdings, LLC
Plaintiff was leveling pre-cast concrete planks weighing one ton and sustained injury when one fell from a jack being used to raise the plank onto one of his hands. The trial court granted plaintiff summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240(1).
The Second Department affirmed judgment in favor of plaintiff because he demonstrated he was engaged in a protected activity as his work was part of the construction of a seven-story building. In opposition, defendants submitted the written statement of plaintiff's employer indicating that plaintiff failed to follow the instruction of his foreman to stop working and instead continued to raise the jack to its maximum level.
The court rejected the written statement as it unsworn and not in admissible form, and although plaintiff's employer's deposition contained similar statements, those statements were hearsay as he merely stated what he learned from interviewing plaintiff's foreman, who did not witness the accident.
PRACTICE POINT: The importance of having the proof submitted for a Summary Judgment motion cannot be over emphasized. Here a case which would have been a question of fact seemingly if the statement had been sworn was a partial Summary Judgment victory for the plaintiff simply due to the admissibility of the proof. The two most common mistakes made in preparing Summary Judgment motions are first not realizing who has the burden and second not having your evidence in admissible form. This is a lesson many of us, myself included, have learned the hard way. It can be difficult to explain to a young associate that simply establishing that the plaintiff can't prove her case is not the same as proving your own case, and the results are not usually good.
Guaman v 1963 Ryer Realty Corp.
Guaman fell when his two coworkers simultaneously loosened the ropes keeping the scaffold he was standing on level, causing the scaffold to shift from a horizontal to a vertical position. The trial court granted Guaman summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim.
The trial court also granted the Ryer defendants summary judgment on its common-law indemnification claim against AP, Ryer's cross-motion for common-law indemnification against Saad, denied Saad's similar cross-motion against AP, and denied AP's cross-motion to dismiss the cross-claims against it.
The First Department affirmed summary judgment for Guaman as he established the scaffold he was working on shifted and he fell, and his accident was also caused by the lack of a guardrail on the side of the scaffold. In opposition, defendants argued sole proximate cause but failed to submit any admissible evidence to support their claim that Guaman failed to attach his safety harness to the lifeline in the proper way. Regardless, the court held the scaffold fell as a result of the ropes supporting its being loosened.
PRACTICE POINT: It is a losing proposition in most instances to argue that while one safety device did in fact fail to protect the plaintiff from an elevation related risk had the plaintiff properly used a second required safety device he would not have been injured. The argument that the plaintiff's failure to properly utilize the second device was the sole proximate cause of the injury has resulted in my being asked, by a smiling judge, the question "David, do you understand the meaning of the word "sole"". There can only be, by definition one cause for it to be the "sole" cause.
Indemnity Issues in Labor Law (SEP)
Both Saad and Ryer argued that AP was plaintiff's employer at the time of the accident. This argument was adopted by the Court where, as here, the Workers' Compensation Board had previously issued a ruling that AP was, in fact, plaintiff's employer. Where AP had a full and fair opportunity to oppose the employment status, it was barred from re-litigating the issue in the bodily injury action. Likewise, where the Board determined that plaintiff was not acting as a special employee of Saad at the time of the accident, it followed that AP was also barred from re-litigating that issue.
Where Saad and Ryer established active negligence against AP, and established that neither supervised, directed or controlled plaintiff's work, it followed that a common law indemnity award was appropriate. We presume that plaintiff sustained a grave injury, thereby avoiding the exclusivity provisions of Section 11.
Amante v Pavarini McGovern, Inc.
Amante arrived early for work and had to cross the job site by entering through an open gate when he fell into an excavation pit. The trial court granted Amante summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240(1) against Pavarini and AB Green, and denied their motions for common-law and contractual indemnification against Interstate Industrial and their third-party contractual indemnification and breach of contract for failure to procure insurance claims against Scalamandre. The trial court also denied Scalamandre's motion to dismiss the contractual indemnification claim.
The First Department affirmed summary judgment for Amante as the excavation pit he fell in
was an elevation-related hazard covered by the statute because there was no proof that he was aware of a warning against walking through the excavation area or that he unreasonably disregarded any such warning and the area he was required to walk through was the only entrance.
PRACTICE POINT: To prove a sole proximate cause defense in this type of case it is necessary for the defendant to prove that the plaintiff had a different method or route available to him and that he knew that the area where the injury occurred was an area he was not permitted to be in. Here neither of these elements was present. These cases are often seen with areas of a roof where a plaintiff has been instructed not to go and he goes to that area and falls sustaining injury.
At the time of plaintiff's motion, Pavarini/AB Green also moved for common law indemnification against a contractor at the jobsite, Interstate. However, where it could not be established that Interstate excavated the pit the Court held that Pavarini/AB Green's motion should be denied. In addition, the Court also found question of fact relative to Pavarini/AB Green's potential negligence in failing to adequately illuminate the premises and/or control access to the site.
Notwithstanding its opinion on Pavarini/AB Green's own potential share of fault, the Court did grant their motion for contractual indemnity against another contractor, Scalamandre. Apparently, the clause was broad enough to encompass the loss (although the Court did not reference its wording). Pavarini/AB Green also established a breach of contract claim against Scalamandre for failing to provide the appropriate amount of coverage. The Court advises that the trade contract required $5,000,000 in coverage, and Scalamandre procured far less.
Purcell v Visting Nurses Found, Inc.
Purcell was assigned to stand on the third step of a ladder in a building's basement and gently pull one end of an eight or ten-foot long piece of steel ("channel") positioned 11 feet high and had been mostly cut loose form the first floor framing. At that moment, an unsecured wall adjacent to the structural wall of the first floor, which had been resting on the channel and a concrete slab, collapsed and knocked Purcell and his ladder onto the floor.
Purcell's foreman inferred from Prucell's movement of the channel caused the unsecured concrete slab to roll out from underneath the unsecured wall, causing it to fall. The trial court granted defendant Cauldwell's motion to dismiss the Labor Law § 240(1) based on a "falling object" theory and denied Purcell's cross-motion for summary judgment on that same claim. The trial court also denied third-party defendant NEF's motion to dismiss the common-law indemnification and contribution claims against it.
The First Department reversed, holding that because Purcell's foreman testified Purcell had leaned the A-frame ladder against a wall in the closed position to enable Purcell to reach the channel, the ladder was not "so … placed … as to give proper protection to" Purcell, was this a violation of 240(1) and thus nothing else could be the sole proximate cause. The court further held Purcell established his injuries were also caused by the lack of any safety devices to secure the unsecured wall.
In opposition, the court held defendants failed to raise an issue of fact whether safety devices were provided or whether the lack or failure of safety devices proximately caused his injuries in light of the foreman's opinion that the concrete slab should have been connected to the wall by installing rebar into the rebar and pouring concrete over it.
The court further distinguished Misseritti v Mark IV Constr. Co., 86 NY2d 487 (1995) in which the decedent was sweeping the floor when he was fatally struck by a completed wall. Here, Prucell's work raised an extraordinary, elevation-related risk beyond that which workers are routinely exposed to on construction sites.
PRACTICE POINT: This case is the double whammy, falling object (the wall) plus falling plaintiff due to an improperly placed ladder. No surprise at the outcome of this one.
The Appellate Division held that the Trial Court erred in not dismissing the common law indemnity claims against NEF. NEF's motion to dismiss was opposed on plaintiff's medical records which detailed post-concussion syndrome and headaches. However, the Court aptly noted that for a head injury to qualify as "grave" under the exclusivity protections of Section 11 of the Workers' Compensation Law the claimant needed to establish the injured party was "no longer employable in any capacity." Here, that wasn't the case, and the motion for summary judgment should have been granted accordingly.
Seferovic v Atlantic Real Estate Holdings, LLC
Seferovic allegedly was injured when the foot of an unsecured A-frame ladder twisted out from under him while he was lifting materials from one level of the roof to another. He was not holding onto the ladder when he fell but rather was carrying materials in one hand and had his other hand on a wall. The building was owned by Atlantic and leased by Sigma. The trial court denied Seferovic summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim and denied defendants' cross-motion to dismiss the Complaint.
The Second Department held Seferovic established prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by submitting evidence that the ladder was unsecured and twisted out from under him for no apparent reason, causing him to fall. The court rejected defendants' sole proximate cause argument, and held Sigma failed to raise an issue of fact as to whether it was an owner or agent under the statute as its President hired Seferovic to perform the work and controlled his work.
PRACTICE POINT: Where the ladder shift and the plaintiff falls the courts have held for many years that the ladder was not properly placed, thus the statute was violated and the actions of the plaintiff could not therefore be the sole proximate cause of the accident. The defendant was indeed an agent of the owner because they were the lessee of the property, they hired the plaintiff and controlled his work, thus the defendant had the right to insist that proper safety practices were followed.
Plaintiff's Summary Judgment motion was denied as the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie cases based on 12 NYCRR 23-1.21(b)(1) or (3) pertaining to ladders and the strength requirements (four times the intended load without breaking, dislodging or loosening of any component) and maintenance. As the ladder shifted and did not break or in any other way fail as described in the code, the court did not grant plaintiff Summary Judgment on the 241(6) claim.
Labor Law § 200 and Common-Law Negligence (VCP)
As to the causes of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence, Sigma failed to establish, prima facie, that it lacked the authority to supervise or control the performance of the work, which it was obligated to do since the accident arose from the means and methods of the injured plaintiff's work. Accordingly, Sigma's motion was properly denied without regard to the sufficiency of the Seferovic's papers submitted in opposition.
Ramade v C.B. Contr. Corp.
Ramade tripped and fell on a piece of rebar sticking out from an unfinished concrete floor. Her employer, Welsbach was hired by the DEP to perform electrical work. SEW was hired by DEP to furnish labor and material, and subcontracted with Welsbach and C.B. Contracting for installing the rebar. The trial court granted SEW summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims as well as the § 241(6) predicated on § 23-1.7(e)(2).
SEW failed to establish prima facie that it cannot be held liable for plaintiff's injuries under Labor Law § 241(6), predicated on an alleged violation of Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-1.7(e)(2). SEW failed to demonstrate that it was not a general contractor that owed a nondelegable duty to provide reasonable and adequate protection and safety to persons employed at the work site, as opposed to a mere prime contractor. Nor did it demonstrate that it was not a statutory agent, having been given the authority to supervise and control the work giving rise to plaintiff's.
The First Department reversed, finding that SEW failed to make a prima facie demonstration that it did not have the authority to control and direct the injury-producing rebar installation work. While SEW submitted portions of the prime contract between SEW and DEP, those portions do not set forth the complete obligations under that contract. Further, SEW did not produce the contract between it and C.B. Contracting, which purportedly details its obligations toward the rebar installation work. As such, issues of fact exist whether SEW had the requisite authority to control and direct the method and manner of C.B. Contracting's rebar installation work. Issues of fact also exist as to SEW's responsibility to cap the subject piece of rebar.
Singh v 1221 Ave. Holdings, LLC
Singh allegedly was injured when he tripped over a screw protruding about one inch above the floor tile on a renovation project. The trial court granted defendants 1221 Ave., Morgan Stanley and L&K Partners' motions to dismiss the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims but denied the same motion as to RCF. The trial court also dismissed Singh's § 241(6) claim predicated on Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) regulations § 23-1.7(e)(1) and (2) against all defendants.
Plaintiff's Labor Law § 241(6) claim predicated upon an alleged violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(e)(2) was properly dismissed since the screw over which plaintiff tripped was an integral part of the raised tile floor system and other work performed on the renovation project. Although the court properly found that plaintiff raised a triable issue as to whether his accident occurred in a "passageway" or an open area, it erred in dismissing the section 23-1.7(e)(1) claim on the ground that the screw constituted an integral part of the work being performed. Dismissal on such ground is warranted only to claims under section 23-1.7(e)(2).
The First Department held that the trial court properly dismissed Singh's Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims as against Morgan Stanley, 1221 Avenue Holdings, and L & K Partners. Contrary to Singh's contention, the screw, which protruded about one inch above the floor tile, was not the result of an inherently dangerous condition at the work site, but rather, was due to the means and methods of the contracted work. Thus, the determination to be made is whether the defendants exercised supervision and control over Singh's work and here, there was a lack of evidence that these defendants exercised such supervision and control. Regular inspection of the site to ensure that work is progressing according to schedule or the authority to stop any work perceived to be unsafe constitutes a general level of supervision that is not sufficient to warrant holding defendants liable under this statute.
Dismissal of the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims as against RCF was also warranted since there was no evidence that this defendant supervised, directed or controlled the work Singh was performing at the time of the accident. It is unknown which subcontractor failed to properly screw the floor tile down, and there was no evidence that RCF was responsible for ensuring that tiles were properly screwed down after they had been opened by another subcontractor performing electrical or plumbing work.
Torres v City of New York
Torres was employed by an excavation crew, Northeast, working ten feet below grade level within a steel trench box providing hand signals to direct an excavator in maneuvering its bucket. As he was signaling the operator of the excavator, his right hand was crushed against the inside of the steel trench box by the bucket of the excavator.
The trial court denied Torres's motion for summary judgment on his Labor Law § 241(6) claim, and granted the City Defendants and, summary judgment dismissing the Complaint alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6) and 200. Caterpillar, the excavator manufacturer, was granted summary judgment on the basis that the alleged failure to warn was not a proximate cause of the accident.
The Second Department held that this case did not involve a gravity- or elevation-related hazard, and thus the City Defendants established they were not liability under this statute.
PRACTICE POINT:
This one is very clear, the plaintiff did not fall, nothing fell on the plaintiff, there was no injury caused by the effects of gravity on any object in any way, it is simply not a 240(1) case.
Labor Law § 241(6) imposes a non-delegable duty on owners, contractors, and their agents to provide a safe workplace to workers, and applies to all areas in which construction, excavation or demolition work is being performed. Defendants contend that, since the injured plaintiff was a member of the "excavating crew," as defined in 12 NYCRR 23-9.5(c), he was authorized to be within range of the moving excavator bucket and they submitted an expert's affidavit in support of that contention. However, a person authorized pursuant to 12 NYCRR 23-9.5 to operate or be within the range of an excavator's bucket may still claim the protections provided by 12 NYCRR 23-4.2(k). Plaintiffs' expert's affidavit raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the City defendants violated 12 NYCRR 23-4.2(k). Summary Judgment was awarded to neither party as the conflicting expert opinions created a question of fact in all directions.
The Second Department affirmed the dismissal the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence causes of action against the City defendants. As this case involved injuries arising from the manner in which work is performed, a defendant must have the authority to exercise supervision and control over the work for liability to attach. Here, the City defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that they did not have the authority to control, direct, or supervise the method or manner in which the work was performed. In opposition, Torres failed to raise a triable issue of fact.
LABOR LAW § 241(6) REGULATIONS; SPECIFIC OR GENERAL (MAS)
12 NYCRR § 23-1.7(c) – Protection in Construction, Demolition and Excavation Operations; Protection from general hazards; Drowning hazards.
§ 23-1.7(b)(1), requires that manned boat, equipped as prescribed, continuously patrol area beneath work location at all times when any person is exposed to drowning hazard and further requires that each boat must be available for prompt rescue where workers are exposed to hazard of falling into water beneath work location, and
is sufficiently specific.
Collado v New York, 72 AD3d 458, 900 NYS2d 10 (1st Dept 2010).
Collado held issues of fact existed whether reg applied where there was continuously patrolling boat at accident and whether absence of such a boat was a factor in the drowning death of a dock builder who lost his footing and fell from a fender system at the basis of the Third Ave Bridge into river 10 feet below, precluding summary judgment for defendants.
12 NYCRR § 23-1.7(d) – Protection from general hazards – Slipping hazards.
§ 23-1.7(d) provides that "employers shall not suffer or permit any employees to use a floor, passageway, walkway, scaffold, platform or other elevated working surface which is in a slippery condition", and is sufficiently specific.
Zachara v Occidental Chemical Corp., 144 AD2d 926, 534 NYS2d 32 (4th Dept 1988);
Hammond v International Paper Co., 178 AD2d 798, 577 NYS2d 526 (3d Dept 1991);
Stairs v State Street Associates, L.P., 206 AD2d 817, 615 NYS2d 478 (3d Dept 1994);
Durfee v Eastman Kodak Co., 212 AD2d 971, 624 NYS2d 704 (4th Dept 1995);
McGrath v Lake Tree Village Associates, 216 AD2d 877, 629 NYS2d 358 (4th Dept 1995);
Colucci v Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of U.S., 218 AD2d 513, 630 NYS2d 515 (1st Dept 1995);
McCague v Walsh Const., 225 AD2d 530, 638 NYS2d 752 (2d Dept 1996);
The evidence in Zachara did not support the jury's verdict that defendant not negligent in failing to provide a safe work place as π had to work on a 3-4 inch layer of grease which caused him to fall.
Hammond held ∆ not entitled to directed verdict where it admitted area of wet floor where π slipped was moist on date of loss and π saw it and "stepped over it."
Stairs held reg inapplicable to π's injury that occurred "in a common area or open courtyard between the various buildings under construction."
Durfee held reg applied where π alleged that the roof he was working on was slippery.
McGrath held reg inapplicable to dirt-pile conditions in common areas or open yard in front of or between buildings.
Collucci held reg applied to π injured when he slipped on food after climbing off ladder while performing work in kitchen of hotel restaurant.
McCague held reg inapplicable where no evidence that slippery condition (1 ft. wide "pancake" of sand, ¼ to ½ inch thick) on sloping ramp π fell existed for sufficient length of time for it to be discovered and fixed.
Labor Law Pointers
V. Christopher Potenza
Marc A. Schulz
Labor Law Team
David R. Adams, Team Leader Steven E. Peiper
Dan D. Kohane Cassandra A. Kazukenus
Michael F. Perley Jennifer A. Ehman
V. Christopher Potenza Marc A. Schulz
In some jurisdictions, newsletters such as this may be considered:
© 2011-2014 Hurwitz & Fine, P.C., All rights reserved.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


The invitations for the Arnold invitational events will start going out starting Wednesday, October 25th though month-end. Once the invitations are all out, another post will be made to confirm the completion of the invitation process.
Previous articleDid you make the Raw Challenge?


text:
Q: Android Studio lint.xml configuration I would like to configure lint in Android Studio to ignore some file. I have placed the lint.xml file in app/ folder. Here is the content of the lint file:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<lint>
    <issue id="UnusedResources">
        <ignore path="res/drawable/background_palette_drawable_6.xml" />
    </issue>
</lint>

When I run lint to check for unused resources it still finds this file as unused.
In app build.gradle I have:
lintOptions {
    disable 'InvalidPackage'
    abortOnError false
    absolutePaths false
    lintConfig file('lint.xml')
}

I have tried changing the file path to /app/src/main/res/drawable/background_palette_drawable_6.xml
and still it does not work.
I put <issue id="UnusedResources" severity="ignore"> and in that case it just ignores all the unused resources so it seems the file lint.xml is found correctly but maybe something is wrong with the path?

A: Consider using path="**/background_palette_drawable_6.xml" with the ** glob pattern to match the file regardless of its location.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


Of the reaction to City making up ground on his men, Klopp replied: "I didn't read or watch it but I still know it. We know if you want to be top of the table and champion at the end of the season you have to show real passion, real desire, you have to fight that's what you have to do.
Klopp confirmed that Trent Alexander-Arnold returned to first-team training this week, while captain Jordan Henderson and Georginio Wijnaldum are also back in contention.
The German boss has made a plea to Liverpool fans to replicate the determination of the players and turn Anfield into a cauldron of atmosphere, even if it means getting into the stadium much earlier than usual.
"We have to show on the pitch we are ready to fight, and the people on the stand have to show they are ready to fight as well," Klopp said.
"I've never left in doubt how much I appreciate the support and believe in the help.
"We have to fight but then our crowd is always there. I'm not sure if I experienced yet that the supporters are there early – it's completely different to Germany, a lot of them are one and a half hours there before.
"I'm long enough here to be used to it, but of course it would be nice. The good thing is all of us know what to do – the players on the pitch and the people in the stand.
"I don't know if I have to ask for it but whoever wants us to succeed in this game and wants to help… I don't have the English impression for it but it's like shouting your soul onto the pitch, that's how we say it in German.


text:
Michael Lorenz
Musicological Trifles and Biographical Paralipomena
Lorenzo Da Ponte's Viennese Residence in 1788
In the book about the 2006 exhibition Lorenzo Da Ponte Aufbruch in die Neue Welt at Vienna's Jewish Museum Werner Hanak writes:
In 1787 Da Ponte is at the peak of his librettist career. And yet he is going to rise and take an even more important role in the world of theater. But before we reach that point in the exhibition, let us interject a question: Where did Da Ponte actually live in Vienna? Contrary to Mozart, whose letters tell us about his numerous addresses during his Viennese years, and different from Da Ponte in New York, where he is documented as established businessman or teacher in many address books, none of the librettist's addresses in Vienna could so far be identified.
Two of Da Ponte's addresses in Vienna can very roughly be located based on the information given in two passages of his memoirs to which Hanak duly refers in his article. After his arrival in Vienna, Da Ponte seems to have lived in the inner city which turned out to be too expensive for him:
Instead of keeping my apartment in the city, which cost me very dearly, I took a small chamber in the house of a tailor in the suburb of Wieden.
A clip from the 1829 edition of Da Ponte's Memorie describing his move to the sobborgo di Vidden.
In a later passage in his memoirs Da Ponte describes how he dreamed that he ran into Casanova on the Graben, one of the streets of Vienna where he lived at that time ("una cioè delle strade di Vienna, dove io allora abitava"). And at some time before February 1785 (at which time Casanova left Vienna), Da Ponte's dream came true:
Salieri, who used to visit me every day, arrived at the usual hour to take me for a walk in a public garden. When I arrived at the Graben I noticed an old man in some distance who was watching me attentively and didn't seem unfamiliar to me. Suddenly I saw him leaving his spot, he approached me, embraced me with great vivacity and exclaimed: "Da Ponte, dear Da Ponte, what joy to find you here!" And those were the very same words that he had said to me in my dream.
Da Ponte describing his dream and his 1784/85 encounter with Casanova on Vienna's Graben
In September 2011, in the course of a complete reading of the 1787/88 Josephinische Steuerfassion, I was able to locate Da Ponte's name in these tax records (an inventory of all Viennese houses subjected to taxation, their main tenants and their leasing rates). It turns out that in 1788 Lorenzo Da Ponte lived in the "Heiligengeist Haus" ("Holy Ghost House") No. 316, at the upper end of the Tiefer Graben, opposite the the so-called Heidenschuß, between the squares Am Hof and Freyung. There, for an annual rent of 200 Gulden, Da Ponte lived in an apartment on the fourth floor that consisted of three rooms, a kitchen and a firewood vault.
The second page of the list of tenants in the house Stadt 316 in the Steuerfassion with Da Ponte listed as no. 15 (A-Wsa, Steueramt B34/1, fol. 470)
3ter Stock
15. Rechter Hand 3 Zimmer, 1 Küche, 1 Holz
gewölb L'Abbe da Ponte 200 [fl]
L'Abbe da Ponte listed in the 1788 tax register
Unfortunately the bishopric's general ledger preserved in Vienna's Diözesanarchiv does not list the individual tenants and only gives a general summary of the house's annual rental yield (amounting to 3,431 fl in 1788/89). The name "Holy Ghost House" originated from a hospital foundation of the Order of the Holy Ghost which was established in Vienna on 27 May 1211 by Duke Leopold VI and his personal physician. The Holy Ghost Hospital proper, which was located on the Wieden, ran into hard times and was eventually destroyed by the Turks in 1529 during the Siege of Vienna. The last head of the Viennese branch of the Holy Ghost foundation, Dr. Jacob Nagl, went to great efforts to at least preserve the two houses in the city at the corner of Tiefer Graben and Heidenschuß for the foundation. For financial reasons the foundation eventually had to be disbanded and in 1579 the two houses were taken over by the bishop Johann Caspar Neubeck for the bishopric of Vienna. The two old small houses were torn down in 1639 and, for reasons of maximization of rental yield, replaced with one six-storied house whose broadsides faced the Heidenschuß and the Tiefer Graben. The entrance of the house was located on the southwest side and was decorated with a huge stone coat of arms of the house's builder Philipp Friedrich Count Breuner, similar to the one that today is on display near the main altar of St. Stephen's Cathedral.
The area between Hof and Freyung on Huber's 1778 Vogelschauplan with the tall "Holy Ghost House" in the center
The "Holy Ghost House" seen from the Tiefer Graben. The entrance was located on the other side towards the Heidenschuß. In the foreground is a so-called Fleischbank, a cold storage house for meat (anonymous watercolor).
An especially nice view of the house appears on Bernardo Bellotto's painting Die Freyung in Wien.
Bernardo Bellotto, gen. Canaletto: view of the Freyung from the northwest 1759–1760 (A-Wkhm, Gemäldegalerie, 1652)
The "Heiligengeisthaus" No. 316 on Bellotto's painting
Around the middle of the nineteenth century Franz Gerasch (1826-1906) painted a historistic view of the Freyung that also shows the "Heiligengeisthaus". It may have been inspired by Bellotto's painting.
Rudolf von Alt: Die Freyung gegen den Heidenschuß 1849 (Wien Museum, I.N. 17666)
The most intriguing implication of Da Ponte's address is the fact that by living in the "Holy Ghost House" L'Abbe Da Ponte was a tenant of Vienna's archbishop Christoph Anton Cardinal Migazzi (1714–1803). Da Ponte is not the only person of musical interest connected with this house: at the time of his marriage in 1775, Antonio Salieri had been living there for several years and it seems possible that he later recommended this particular residence to his friend Da Ponte.
Da Ponte's landlord: Christoph Cardinal Migazzi Count zu Wall und Sonnenthurm (1714–1803)
Cardinal Migazzi listed as the owner of the house Stadt 316 in the 1787/88 Steuerfassion (A-Wsa, Steueramt B34/1, fol. 469)
Who else lived at Stadt 316 in 1788? The first floor (in Vienna "Zu ebener Erde") housed a janitor's room, four butcheries, a wine tavern run by the bishopric and six Auslaggewölbe (shops). Among them Anton Angermayer's cheese dairy, Johann Michael Geiblinger's Greißlerei (a general store), and the butcheries of Nikolaus Paulus and Joseph Tscherny. The largest and most expensive apartment in the house (nine rooms on the third floor below Da Ponte) was let to the Tridentine capitular Count Wilhelm Triangi von und zu Latsch und Madernburg. The tenant who shared the fourth floor with Da Ponte was possibly Anton Brandt (1752–1822), the official of the Hungarian Court Chancellery, whose name appears in Matthias Raby von Raba und Mura's 1797 book Justizmord und Regierungsgreuel. The fifth floor was leased to the wigmaker Paul Prem (the future father-in-law of the the clarinetist Joseph Bähr) and the Tyrolian Schwertfeger (swordsmith) Alois Walcher. On the highest floors lived Leopold Peidinger, the widow Ursula Kernhofer and the tailor Joachim Ruckhart, who had moved into the "Heiligengeist Haus" in 1769 after his marriage to Elisabeth Drescher, the daughter of a tailor who had also lived there. Of course, the house was also inhabited by countless subtenants whose names do not appear in the tax records.
It is not possible to determine when Da Ponte moved into the "Heiligengeist Haus" and whether he already moved out before leaving Vienna for Trieste in June 1791. Regarding Da Ponte's collaboration with Mozart, it is important to note that the residence at the Heidenschuß was situated relatively close to Mozart's apartment on the Alsergrund where the composer lived at the very same time. This proximity may have been relevant in course of the preparation of the Vienna premiere of Don Giovanni on 7 May 1788. Mozart's next residence in the house "Zum Nikolaus" at Judenplatz 245 was also located relatively close to the Heidenschuß where Da Ponte may still have lived in 1789, when he and Mozart began working on Così fan tutte.
In 1855 the bishopric sold the "Heiligengeist Haus" (by then No. 236) to the newly founded k.k. privilegierte Österreichische Creditanstalt which tore it down to make way for its new headquarters (to be destroyed during WWII). Most of the floor area of the historic building is located today on the street in front of Heidenschuß 2.
The "Heiligengeist Haus" (No. 236) in relation to today's buildings outlined in red (Paul Harrer-Lucienfeld, Wien, seine Häuser, Geschichte und Kultur. Band 2, 1. Teil, Vienna 1952)
The Freyung from the northwest in 2013. The Schottenkirche is on the left.
This discovery was first published on 26 September 2011 in an amended footnote of my article "Mozart's Apartment on the Alsergrund" and again on 2 July 2012 in Wikipedia's Da Ponte article.
© Dr. Michael Lorenz 2013. All rights reserved
Posted by Michael Lorenz at 5:26 PM
Labels: Cardinal Migazzi, Freyung, Heidenschuß, Lorenzo Da Ponte, Mozart, Vienna
Liz Ringrose February 3, 2013 at 8:51 PM
A fascinating blog entry made all the more so by the excellent illustrations. Intresting snippet about De Ponte and Casanova too. As always I read it twice to make sure I got everything.
Dexter Edge February 4, 2013 at 2:09 PM
Emmanuelle Pesqué February 5, 2013 at 12:46 PM
As Liz wrote, this is really fascinating ! Thank you very much for sharing this ! Your blog is a treasure chest.
Emmanuelle Pesqué
Catherine Sprague May 15, 2013 at 5:29 PM
Wonderful, Michael. I'll use this for my book and properly attribute, of course.
Echt gute Arbeit! Wenn Sie jetzt noch Da Pontes Wiedener Wohnung recherchieren, dann weiss man fast alles über seine Wiener Zeit. Viel Glück.
P. Kratochvil
Musicologist, historian, photographer
Michael Lorenz | Photography
Isaias & Clarissa, October 1983 -
Joseph Haydn's Real Wife
Haydn's Wedding On 26 November 1760, in the Eligius Chapel of Vienna's St. Stephen's Cathedral , Joseph Haydn married Maria ...
Joseph Lange's Mozart Portrait
Joseph Lange 's unfinished portrait of Mozart is one of the most popular and best known images of the composer. Its somber coloring and...
New Light on Mauro Giuliani's Vienna Years
The legendary Italian guitarist Mauro Giuliani 's private life during his stay in Vienna has always been overshadowed by a small mystery...
Mozart and the Myth of Reusable Coffins
The ineradicably popular conception that Mozart's body was sewn into a linen bag, put into a reusable coffin with flaps on the bottom an...
A Little Leitgeb Research
Owing to the wonderful pieces Mozart wrote for him, the hornist Joseph Leitgeb (1732–1811) ranks among the most widely known wind players of...
The Continuing Mutilation of Schubert's "Der Leiermann"
In November 1999 Naxos released a recording of Schubert's " Winterreise " D. 911, performed by baritone Roman Trekel and pi...
Mozart in the Trattnerhof
The Trattnerhof On 27 May 1773 the publisher and printer Johann Thomas von Trattner was granted permission by the City Council of Vienna ...
Stauffer Miscellanea
Experts agree that Johann Georg Stauffer (1778-1853) was one of the greatest luthiers of his time. He was an inventive genius, who, never s...
The Exhumation of Josephine Countess von Deym
In the quest for the identification of Beethoven's mysterious Immortal Beloved , which, since the composer's death, has kept a lot o...
An Unknown Mozart Work
In November 1828 Carl Mozart, "Translator beÿ der Maÿländer Central-Staats-Buchhaltung" in Milan, received a fee of 170 ...
A Few Grassi Trifles
Mozart's Godson
"The Newly Discovered Mozart Portrait": Back to Re...
© 2012-22 Dr. Michael Lorenz. Watermark theme. Powered by Blogger.


So, I had better get some. Apparently you can drink it at any time of day. A nice glass of vinegar before going to bed sounds good.
A bottle of Morimitsu surrounded by, Umi-budo, Goya and some fish with ham in it.
Luckily we have organized an event.
Series of talks about the science of food and a market with lots of Okinawan specialities.
Big success. The Minister for Science Stuff, who is also the Minister for Okinawa, comes and drinks Morimitsu. This guarantees funding for the university for the next few years. I also score a bottle and some veg.
The sub plot however is that today is the best sailing day that there has ever been. Blue, blue sea and sky, 28 degrees, fresh cross breeze. I am going to miss it.
As soon as I can politely escape, I zoom home, conscious of tide going out. Will I get there before the boat dries out?
I am determined to take the boat out but as the sun slips below the horizon, she is still stuck fast. I take photos of the rock in front of the house.
HAMLET Do you see yonder rock that's almost in shape of a camel?
Little by little the tide comes back in. I heave the Scaffie to deeper water and finally we are free!
It is warm and very quiet. I sail.


text:
Giving freshwater biodiversity a seat at the table
Researchers from 90 scientific institutions worldwide, including the Museum für Naturkunde Berlin, have stated that freshwater biodiversity research and conservation lag far behind the efforts carried out in terrestrial and marine environments. In a new publication in Ecology Letters, they propose a research agenda with 15 priorities aimed at improving research on biodiversity in lakes, rivers, ponds and wetlands. This is urgently needed, as biodiversity loss is taking place much faster in inland waters than on land or in the oceans.
"Biodiversity loss in freshwater is a global crisis that is literally hidden beneath the water surface," stated Professor Sonja Jähnig of the Leibniz Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries (IGB) and Humboldt University in Berlin. The freshwater scientist spearheaded the agenda for prioritizing research topics and conservation measures for freshwater biodiversity – together with 95 researchers from 38 countries - and the Museum für Naturkunde Berlin.
Freshwater biodiversity encompasses the genes, populations, species, communities, and ecosystems of all inland waters. It provides essential services that are vital to human well-being. Despite its importance, "At present, freshwater biodiversity is declining at an unprecedented rate. The data bear this out very clearly," said Sonja Jähnig.
The latest Living Planet Report documents an average decline in populations of 84 percent – in only the last 50 years – for 3,741 populations studied, representing 944 freshwater vertebrate species. This is the steepest decline in the three major realms of land, oceans and freshwater. "Despite the ongoing, unprecedented decline, international and intergovernmental science-policy platforms, funding agencies and major non-profit initiatives still fail to give freshwater biodiversity the priority it deserves," Dr. Alain Maasri, lead author of the study who is also at the IGB, also criticized.
A recent report (Moralis, D. 2021. Environmental funding by European foundations, volume 5 ed. Centre, EF. European Foundation Centre) on environmental funding by 127 European foundations shows that inland waters accounted for only 1.75 percent of the € 745 million approved for environmental work in 2018, and that freshwaters ranked second-last among the 13 thematic categories used to assess funding distribution. Often, inland waters are subsumed within terrestrial habitats, and then not adequately addressed in funding plans.
The authors of the Agenda identified 15 priority needs and grouped these into five major areas: data infrastructure, monitoring, ecology, management, and social ecology, against which international freshwater biodiversity research should be developed in a targeted manner. The authors also identified three major challenges – knowledge gaps, miscommunication and inadequate policies – to be overcome.
"It's not about pointing fingers at policy makers or other stakeholders. It is up to all of us – including us researchers – to set priorities and work better together," said Alain Maasri. There are major gaps in knowledge and there is unequal access to information, for example about the interactions between organisms and the environment. Monitoring could also be improved with the help of automated image and video analysis, artificial intelligence, remote sensing technologies and the engagement of citizen scientists. Other disciplines and non-freshwater specialists should also be involved.
Communication difficulties exist in coordinating existing monitoring programs, in linking them across sites, and in mobilizing and making existing data available. These must be accompanied by digitization of data from regional and national monitoring agencies, museum collections and research institutions.
The authors hope for more political support in the case of conflicting goals between ecological, economic and social interests through the involvement of local communities and experts. This also implies the inclusion of traditional and indigenous ecological knowledge.
On the genesis of the international agenda
The Agenda was initiated during an international workshop of the Alliance for Freshwater Life in Berlin in November 2018. The Agenda reflects the collective opinion of the authors and is based on intense discussions and the exchange of knowledge and ideas since the workshop. The authors are researchers from 38 countries, of which 18 (47%) are considered countries of the Global South. Of the 96 authors, 28 (29%) are affiliated with universities and research institutes in countries of the Global South, and 16 (17%) indicate that they are currently working with indigenous peoples on the management and conservation of freshwater biodiversity. The authors are therefore convinced that the proposed agenda, with its 15 priorities, reflects a representative diversity of opinion.
The 15 priorities
Data infrastructure – 1. Establish a comprehensive overview of data, 2. Effectively mobilize and digitize existing data, 3. Develop accessible databases according to the principles of discoverability, accessibility, interoperability and reusability (FAIR data principles).
Monitoring – 4. Coordinate existing monitoring programs and establish new ones, 5. Identify and address biodiversity knowledge gaps, 6. Develop innovative methods for biodiversity monitoring.
Ecology – 7. Understand mechanistic relationships between biodiversity and ecosystem services, 8. Examineng biodiversity responses to various stressors, 9. Examine ecological and evolutionary responses of organisms, communities and ecosystems to global change.
Management – 10. Evaluation of restoration activities, 11. Development of management strategies consistent with Nature Futures scenarios, 12. Development of landscape perspectives for management and ecologically sound dam construction and operation concepts.
Social ecology – 13. Incorporate social science into biodiversity research, 14. Development of methods for assessing trade-offs among ecological, economic and social needs, 15. Systematic development of citizen science and participatory research.
Alliance for Freshwater Life (AFL)
More information about the network


text:
package com.wjiec.springaio.security.controller;

import org.springframework.stereotype.Controller;
import org.springframework.web.bind.annotation.GetMapping;
import org.springframework.web.bind.annotation.RequestMapping;

@Controller
@RequestMapping("/")
public class HomeController {

    @GetMapping("/")
    public String home() {
        return "home";
    }

}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


product dimensions: 12" x 12" x 19"
each felt + leather milking stool is custom built to order. upon receiving your order we will contact you to begin the custom selection of hardwood and additional finishes.
each piece is stamped with the date of completion and production number from that day.
all products are made to order. please allow minimum 3 weeks before shipment.


text:
Trump prepares to deliver State of the Union address this week
President Trump is preparing to deliver his second State of the Union address on Tuesday.
The address follows the longest government shutdown in history, which is temporarily on hold while both parties try desperately to find a resolution.
Reports say that the president is aiming to unite Americans in his speech, but many feel he will use the address to pitch once again for his $5.7 billion border wall.
"I want to see our country united," Trump tweeted last week. "If I could unite the country, I would consider it a tremendous success."
Trump's speech was initially scheduled to take place on Jan. 29. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) postponed the address until the shutdown came to an end.
The shutdown was brought to a halt after Trump agreed to sign a three-week continuing resolution (CR) to agree on a decision. It was also announced last week that former Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams would deliver the Democratic response following the speech.
Congress now until Feb. 15, to lock in an agreement to prevent a second partial government shutdown.
During a recent interview on CBS's "Face the Nation," he spoke about a possible second shutdown.
"I don't take anything off the table. I don't like to take things off the table. It's that alternative. It's national emergency, it's other things, and you know there have been plenty national emergencies called. And this really is an invasion of our country by human traffickers," Trump said.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is not a fan of a declaring a national emergency to obtain the funds.
"I'm for whatever works, which means avoiding a shutdown and avoiding the president feeling he should declare a national emergency," he told reporters last week.
Pressley delivers SOTU address rebuttal
By Tameka Brodie Feb 5, 2020
Trump postpones ICE raids for two weeks
By Staff writer Jun 24, 2019
Stacey Abrams to deliver Democratic rebuttal of the State of the Union
By Tameka Brodie Jan 30, 2019
Pence on Trump's coronavirus address 'I don't think there's confusion'
Pelosi tears up Trump speech at State of the Union
Trump prepares to declare new national emergency to impose Mexico tariffs
By Tameka Brodie Jun 7, 2019
Trump claims Emergency Declaration is "constitutional" ahead of vote
Attorney General William Barr to release redacted Mueller report within a week


ALL WIPES is an all purpose wipe pre-saturated with isopropyl alcohol cleans surfaces without leaving a residue. ALL WIPES quickly clean high use surfaces such as clean rooms, doorknobs, phones, slot machines, countertops, keyboards, shopping cart handles, remotes, railings and more.
ALWAYS SHINE WIPES are a convenient way to help resist finger marking and smudges. Use on stainless steel, aluminum, brass, copper, and more. Contains no chlorinated solvents, acids, alkalis, abrasives or heavy creams.
DRY TASK WIPES are a single ply wipe that has a built-in polyfilm dust layer. Great for use on eye glasses, computer screens, cell phone/tablet screens, etc. DRY TASK WIPES come in a pop up box keeping them clean and ready to use.
GERM-A-WAY Disinfecting Wipes are formulated to disinfect hard, non-porous surfaces such as walls, counter tops, metal and stainless steel surfaces, porcelain, tile, plastic, bathroom stalls, shower stalls, desktops, doorknobs, tables, telephones, exercise machines and more. GERM-A-WAY Disinfecting Wipes are safe enough to use to clean personal protective safety equipment, protective headgear, hard hats, respirators, goggles, face shields, silicone rubber or PVC hearing protectors, and ear muffs. Effective for disinfection against E.coli, Salmonella choleraesuis, Tuberculosis, Staphylococcus and more. GERM-A-WAY Disinfecting Wipes are an effective virucide against HIV-1, Norwalk Virus and Feline calicivirus. Not for personal cleansing.
JUMBO WIPES are designed to clean and deodorize any surface, anytime. They are quick and easy to use and are ideal for use on tile, glass, metals, equipment, tables, counters, or any other hard surface in athletic clubs, schools, stores, offices, shop areas, and other institutional uses. The wall mounted dispenser allows for quick convenient individual use. JUMBO WIPES have a pleasant scent leaving the room smelling clean and fresh. The handy dispenser may be mounted to the wall with towels dispensing up or down.
Use LENS WIPES to keep all optical lenses clean and clear, including prescription eye glasses, sunglasses, safety goggles, face masks, and other eye shields. LENS WIPES can be put into a pocket, tool box, or glove compartment so that they are readily available.
MEGA CLEAR WIPES are the fastest and easiest way to clean glass, mirrors, and other surfaces and keep them looking good. MEGA CLEAR WIPES are ammonia and lint free and will not streak or leave any residue to interfere with visibility. Can be used on any surface to remove dirt, grime, oil, smudges, fingerprints and more!
MEGA ROLL TOWEL WIPE is a low-lint, latex-free, cellulose and synthetic based disposable wipe that offers superior wet strength, absorbency and versatility for light to heavy duty wiping applications.
NOTE: Stand has a serrated edge that can cut through towel to make it any size you like.
Packaging: 475 12" x 12" towel wipes per roll.
MUSCLEMAN is a superior value hand cleaner/towel combination. The thick textured towels aid in cleaning soils from hands and encapsulated the lifted dirt while the hand cleaning solution dissolves grease, grime, oil, lubricants, paints, adhesives, inks, tar and more. MUSCLEMAN does not contain any solvents that dry out of the skin. Contains five conditioners and an antiseptic agent that helps prevent infection.
These sanitizing towels are made from a non-abrasive fabric that is gentle to skin. They're ideal to both clean and sanitize when soap and water are not available. Plus, each towel is fortified with emollients and natural oils to prevent chapping. OMEGA SANITIZING WIPES can be used to clean and disinfect hard surfaces as well. EPA Registered.
OMEGA SANITIZING WIPES LEMON hand sanitizer wipes are a one-step system combining both an abrasive non-scratching wipe and a highly effective skin sanitizing formula. OMEGA SANITIZING WIPES LEMON hand sanitizer wipes absorb and remove disease causing germs and bacteria. This product contains a highly effective antimicrobial formula that assures a rapid kill. OMEGA SANITIZING WIPES LEMON hand sanitizer wipe's unique formula reduces the risk of infection by killing 99.9% of disease causing organisms. Micro-Organism (Exposure Time): Pseudomonas aeruginosa (10 Seconds) • Staphylococcus aureus (10 Seconds) • Escherichia Coli (20 Seconds) • Streptococcus pyogenes (10 Seconds) • Salmonella choleraesuis (10 Seconds) • Candida albicans (10 Seconds) • Staphylococcus aureus – MRSA (10 Seconds).
POLISH ALL WIPES are pre-moistened with an advanced polishing formula that cleans, polishes and protects finished wood surfaces. Use POLISH ALL WIPES to clean, polish, and remove smudge marks and finger prints in one easy step. Our tear resistant wipes do not contain any abrasives and will not leave behind wax buildup or an oily residue. Only 5.68% VOC.
RESTORE WIPES are the fast and easy way to clean and protect all surfaces of your vehicle. Premoistened with an advanced water-based silicone formula. RESTORE WIPES condition and protect leather, vinyl, plastic and rubber surfaces, both inside and outside the vehicle, while they clean and restore the surface's original shine. RESTORE WIPES keep dashboards from drying, cracking and fading under the intense rays of the sun. They also clean and restore the "showroom shine" to parts: side moldings, rubber bumpers, cup holders, door and window seals and even plastic hub caps. Best of all, RESTORE WIPES have a special added anti-static ingredient that repels dust and keeps surfaces looking new long after they've been cleaned.
TOUGHMAN TOWEL multi-purpose two sided wipes are built for ultimate performance. The abrasive side cuts through the toughest soils, while the smooth side allows for wiping the most delicate surfaces. Fortified with new generation cleaning agents and unmatched skin conditioners. This one wipe does it all! Try TOUGHMAN TOWEL on grease, grime, oil, tar, and many other soils. Can be used as a hand cleaner or surface wipe to take on the toughest jobs.


Citizens of Australia, Brunei, Canada, China, Hong Kong, Ireland, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea, United Kingdom and the United States, in addition to persons holding British National (Overseas) passports may obtain a free visa on arrival valid for 30 days. Extension is possible for a fee.
All other nationalities will be required to apply for a visa in advance, which will require a sponsor from inside the UAE. Your Hotel or the Dubai Tango Festival official travel agent or Emirates airlines if you are travelling with them will be able or arrange this.
Visa Approval is the sole discretion of the UAE Immigration Officials and not DTTS.
Visa charges shall not be refunded once applied in the system and an additional cost also involved if required to cancel the applied visa application or issued visas.
Your better coordination will help us to serve better and there will not be a last minute hassle at all.