Della Croce v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Della Croce v. City of New York

297 A.D.2d 257, 746 N.Y.2d 484, 746 N.Y.S.2d 484, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8179

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

DecidedAugust 29, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 297 A.D.2d 257 (Della Croce v. City of New York) 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

Della Croce v. City of New York, 297 A.D.2d 257, 746 N.Y.2d 484, 746 N.Y.S.2d 484, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8179 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Plaintiff, a Transit Authority employee, alleges that he fell off a ladder while attaching a three-by-five-foot bulletin board to the wall of a subway station locker room owned by defendant City. The motion court correctly held that such work did not involve “making a significant physical change to the configuration or composition of the building or structure,” and [258]*258therefore did not constitute “altering” within the meaning of Labor Law § 240 (1) (Joblon v Solow, 91 NY2d 457, 465; compare, Futterman v Rela Realty Corp., 283 AD2d 261, with Catoliato v Sam’s Club, 254 AD2d 62, Iv dismissed 93 NY2d 888).

Plaintiff’s claims based on Labor Law § 241 (6) should also have been dismissed since plaintiff was not performing any of the tasks enumerated in part 23 of the Industrial Code (12 NYCKR 23-1.4 [b] [13]) when he was injured (see, Joblon, supra at 466). Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Sullivan, Ellerin, Rubin and Friedman, JJ.

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

Plaintiff, a Transit Authority employee, alleges that he fell off a ladder while attaching a three-by-five-foot bulletin board to the wall of a subway station locker room owned by defendant City. The motion court correctly held that such work did not involve “making a significant physical change to the configuration or composition of the building or structure,” and [258]*258therefore did not constitute “altering” within the meaning of Labor Law § 240 (1) (Joblon v Solow, 91 NY2d 457, 465; compare, Futterman v Rela Realty Corp., 283 AD2d 261, with Catoliato v Sam’s Club, 254 AD2d 62, Iv dismissed 93 NY2d 888).

Plaintiff’s claims based on Labor Law § 241 (6) should also have been dismissed since plaintiff was not performing any of the tasks enumerated in part 23 of the Industrial Code (12 NYCKR 23-1.4 [b] [13]) when he was injured (see, Joblon, supra at 466). Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Sullivan, Ellerin, Rubin and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

297 A.D.2d 257, 746 N.Y.2d 484, 746 N.Y.S.2d 484, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8179, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/della-croce-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack