Kircher v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kircher v. City of New York

122 A.D.3d 486, 997 N.Y.S.2d 41

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

DecidedNovember 18, 2014

Docket13513 100527/09

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 122 A.D.3d 486 (Kircher 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

Kircher v. City of New York, 122 A.D.3d 486, 997 N.Y.S.2d 41 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jeffrey K. Oing, J.), entered February 24, 2014, which granted plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability on his Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion denied.

The motion court correctly concluded that the flooring on which plaintiff was working, which was comprised of wooden planks with gaps between them seven stories above the bottom of a shaft below, confronted plaintiff with an elevation-related hazard to which Labor Law § 240 (1) is applicable, regardless of whether the flooring was permanent (see Jones v 414 Equities LLC, 57 AD3d 65, 79-80 [1st Dept 2008]; Carpio v Tishman Constr. Corp. of N.Y., 240 AD2d 234, 235-236 [1st Dept 1997]). Triable issues of fact exist, however, as to whether the work in which plaintiff was engaged when his accident occurred constituted routine maintenance or a repair covered under the statute (see Montalvo v New York & Presbyt. Hosp., 82 AD3d 580 [1st Dept 2011]; see also Esposito v New York City Indus. Dev. Agency, 1 NY3d 526 [2003]).

Concur — Friedman, J.E, Acosta, Saxe, Manzanet-Daniels and Gische, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2014 NY Slip Op 30424(U).]

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jeffrey K. Oing, J.), entered February 24, 2014, which granted plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability on his Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion denied.

The motion court correctly concluded that the flooring on which plaintiff was working, which was comprised of wooden planks with gaps between them seven stories above the bottom of a shaft below, confronted plaintiff with an elevation-related hazard to which Labor Law § 240 (1) is applicable, regardless of whether the flooring was permanent (see Jones v 414 Equities LLC, 57 AD3d 65, 79-80 [1st Dept 2008]; Carpio v Tishman Constr. Corp. of N.Y., 240 AD2d 234, 235-236 [1st Dept 1997]). Triable issues of fact exist, however, as to whether the work in which plaintiff was engaged when his accident occurred constituted routine maintenance or a repair covered under the statute (see Montalvo v New York & Presbyt. Hosp., 82 AD3d 580 [1st Dept 2011]; see also Esposito v New York City Indus. Dev. Agency, 1 NY3d 526 [2003]).

Concur — Friedman, J.E, Acosta, Saxe, Manzanet-Daniels and Gische, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2014 NY Slip Op 30424(U).]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

122 A.D.3d 486, 997 N.Y.S.2d 41, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kircher-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack