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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided August 29, 2002·Published·Cited by 3 cases

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] therefore 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] therefore 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.

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

297 A.D.2d 257 (Della Croce v. City of New York) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related