Allen v. City of New York

89 A.D.3d 406, 931 N.Y.2d 853
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 1, 2011·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Flaintiff s decedent, an employee of a traveling carnival, was injured while preparing an amusement ride for use at a carnival on City-owned property. Contrary to plaintiffs contention, the decedent was not engaged in the erection of a structure as contemplated by Labor Law § 240 (1). He was installing scenery panels as a backdrop to the ride, which came prebuilt (see Hodges v Boland’s Excavating & Topsoil, Inc., 24 AD3d 1089, 1091-1092 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 710 [2006]; Munoz v DJZ Realty, LLC, 5 NY3d 747 [2005]; Adair v Bestek Light. & Staging Corp., 298 AD2d 153 [2002]).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Gonzalez, EJ., Tom, Sweeny and Renwick, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Allen v. City of New York, 89 A.D.3d 406, 931 N.Y.2d 853 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

89 A.D.3d 406 (Allen v. City of New York) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Andino v. Wizards Studios N. Inc.
2024 NY Slip Op 00220 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2024)
Lopez v. 6071 Enters., LLC
2018 NY Slip Op 1372 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)