Belding v. Verizon New York, Inc.
This text of 925 N.E.2d 577 (Belding v. Verizon New York, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed with costs. The certified question should be answered in the affirmative.
Applying the bomb blast film to the lobby windows, in and of itself, qualifies as a significant alteration (see Labor Law § 240 *753 [1]; Joblon v Solow, 91 NY2d 457, 465 [1998]). BlastGARD significantly altered the configuration or composition of the structure by changing the way the lobby windows react to explosions, impacts and the elements. The effects of this one-time security enhancement distinguish the activity from affixing an advertisement on a billboard, a more frequent change that has less structural effect (see Munoz v DJZ Realty, LLC, 5 NY3d 747 [2005]).
Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur in memorandum.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, etc.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
925 N.E.2d 577, 14 N.Y.3d 751, 898 N.Y.S.2d 539, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/belding-v-verizon-new-york-inc-ny-2010.