Dann v. City of Syracuse

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dann v. City of Syracuse

231 A.D.2d 855, 647 N.Y.S.2d 617, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14234

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedSeptember 27, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 231 A.D.2d 855 (Dann v. City of Syracuse) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dann v. City of Syracuse, 231 A.D.2d 855, 647 N.Y.S.2d 617, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14234 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Gary Dann (plaintiff) was injured while working on the roof of a building under construction. A portion of the roof surface had been completed, and there was a two-inch elevational differential between the finished and unfinished portions of the [856]*856roof. According to plaintiff, he was transporting bundles of roofing shingles on a two-wheel hand cart known as an insulation fork when he tripped on the two-inch lip and caught the axle of the cart on his foot or leg. The load on the cart shifted and plaintiff was struck in the head by a bundle of shingles. Plaintiffs appeal from that portion of an order granting the motion of third-party defendant A. W. Farrell & Son, Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action.

We reject plaintiffs’ contention that the alleged violations of the Industrial Code, namely, 12 NYCRR 23-1.5 (c) (2) and 23-1.7 (e) (2), support their section 241 (6) cause of action. Section 23-1.5 (c) (2) reiterates a general standard of care and does not set forth the concrete specifications required to support a Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action (Williams v White Haven Mem. Park, 227 AD2d 923). Moreover, plaintiffs failed to show that the cart was defective. Section 23-1.7 (e) (2), which requires that work areas be kept free from accumulations of dirt and debris and from scattered tools and sharp projections, does not apply. The two-inch lip between the finished and unfinished portions of the roof was an integral part of the roof being installed (see, Adams v Glass Fab, 212 AD2d 972, 973). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Mordue, J.— Summary Judgment.) Present—Pine, J. P., Fallon, Wesley, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Gary Dann (plaintiff) was injured while working on the roof of a building under construction. A portion of the roof surface had been completed, and there was a two-inch elevational differential between the finished and unfinished portions of the [856]*856roof. According to plaintiff, he was transporting bundles of roofing shingles on a two-wheel hand cart known as an insulation fork when he tripped on the two-inch lip and caught the axle of the cart on his foot or leg. The load on the cart shifted and plaintiff was struck in the head by a bundle of shingles. Plaintiffs appeal from that portion of an order granting the motion of third-party defendant A. W. Farrell & Son, Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action.

We reject plaintiffs’ contention that the alleged violations of the Industrial Code, namely, 12 NYCRR 23-1.5 (c) (2) and 23-1.7 (e) (2), support their section 241 (6) cause of action. Section 23-1.5 (c) (2) reiterates a general standard of care and does not set forth the concrete specifications required to support a Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action (Williams v White Haven Mem. Park, 227 AD2d 923). Moreover, plaintiffs failed to show that the cart was defective. Section 23-1.7 (e) (2), which requires that work areas be kept free from accumulations of dirt and debris and from scattered tools and sharp projections, does not apply. The two-inch lip between the finished and unfinished portions of the roof was an integral part of the roof being installed (see, Adams v Glass Fab, 212 AD2d 972, 973). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Mordue, J.— Summary Judgment.) Present—Pine, J. P., Fallon, Wesley, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

231 A.D.2d 855, 647 N.Y.S.2d 617, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14234, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dann-v-city-of-syracuse-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack