Kretzschmar v. New York State Urban Development Corp.

13 A.D.3d 270, 785 N.Y.S.2d 923, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15428
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 21, 2004
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 13 A.D.3d 270 (Kretzschmar v. New York State Urban Development Corp.) 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
Kretzschmar v. New York State Urban Development Corp., 13 A.D.3d 270, 785 N.Y.S.2d 923, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15428 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sherry Klein Heitler, J.), entered December 4, 2003, which denied plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment as to liability on the part of defendant Convention Center Development Corporation and granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Elaintiff Charles Kretzschmar, an electrician, was injured in the process of removing a sign from a temporary exhibit suspended from the ceiling at the Javits Center. The motion court correctly dismissed plaintiffs’ Labor Law § 240 (1) claim because the electrician was not working on a “structure” at the time of his accident (Stanislawczyk v 2 E. 61st St. Corp., 1 AD3d 155 [2003], lv denied 3 NY3d 604 [2004]), and his work was not effecting a significant or permanent physical change to the [271]*271structural integrity of the building (Tanzer v A. Terzi Prods., 244 AD2d 224 [1997]) through construction, renovation or repair (Perchinsky v State of New York, 232 AD2d 34 [1997], lv dismissed 91 NY2d 830 [1997]). Similarly, plaintiffs’ Labor Law § 241(6) claim was properly dismissed since that section is limited to “areas in which construction, excavation or demolition work is being performed,” and the electrician’s activity did not meet that test (see Nagel v D & R Realty Corp., 99 NY2d 98 [2002]; Perchinsky v State of New York, supra). Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Sullivan, Williams and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Related

Mananghaya v. Bronx-Lebanon Hosp. Ctr.
2018 NY Slip Op 6061 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Derosas v. Rosmarins Land Holdings, LLC
2017 NY Slip Op 2019 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
McCoy v. Kirsch
99 A.D.3d 13 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Panico v. Advanstar Communications, Inc.
92 A.D.3d 656 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Holler v. City of New York
38 A.D.3d 606 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Maes v. 408 W. 39 LLC
24 A.D.3d 298 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Sang Hyun Ban v. Sunjin Shipping USA, Inc.
23 A.D.3d 452 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
13 A.D.3d 270, 785 N.Y.S.2d 923, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15428, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kretzschmar-v-new-york-state-urban-development-corp-nyappdiv-2004.