Outar v. City of New York

New York Court of Appeals

Outar v. City of New York

832 N.E.2d 1186, 5 N.Y.3d 731, 799 N.Y.S.2d 770, 2005 N.Y. LEXIS 1218

New York Court of Appeals·Decided June 9, 2005·Published·Cited by 100 cases

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed, with costs. The elevation differential between the dolly and plaintiff was sufficient to trigger Labor Law § 240 (l)’s protection, and the dolly was an object that required securing for the purposes of the undertaking (cf. Narducci v Manhasset Bay Assoc., 96 NY2d 259, 268 [2001]).

Concur: Chief Judge Kaye and Judges G.B. Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo, Read and R.S. Smith.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed, with costs. The elevation differential between the dolly and plaintiff was sufficient to trigger Labor Law § 240 (l)’s protection, and the dolly was an object that required securing for the purposes of the undertaking (cf. Narducci v Manhasset Bay Assoc., 96 NY2d 259, 268 [2001]).

Concur: Chief Judge Kaye and Judges G.B. Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo, Read and R.S. Smith.

Outar v. City of New York, 832 N.E.2d 1186, 5 N.Y.3d 731, 799 N.Y.S.2d 770, 2005 N.Y. LEXIS 1218 (N.Y. 2005).

Pincite

832 N.E.2d 1186 (Outar v. City of New York) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related