Porazzo v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Porazzo v. City of New York

39 A.D.3d 731, 834 N.Y.S.2d 298

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

DecidedApril 17, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 39 A.D.3d 731 (Porazzo 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

Porazzo v. City of New York, 39 A.D.3d 731, 834 N.Y.S.2d 298 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Solomon, J.), dated January 18, 2006, as granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action based on an alleged violation of Labor Law § 241 (6).

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

In response to the defendants’ prima facie demonstration of their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiffs failed to submit evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the open, ground level of the work site where the injured plaintiff fell did not constitute a passageway, walkway, or other elevated working surface contemplated by 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (d) (see Roberts v Worth Constr., Inc., 21 AD3d 1074, 1077 [2005]; Morra v White, 276 AD2d 536 [2000]; Lawyer v Hoffman, 275 AD2d 541, 542 [2000]; Constantino v Kreisler Borg Florman Gen. Constr. Co., 272 AD2d 361 [2000]).

The appellants’ remaining contention is without merit. Schmidt, J.P., Mastro, Carni and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Solomon, J.), dated January 18, 2006, as granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action based on an alleged violation of Labor Law § 241 (6).

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

In response to the defendants’ prima facie demonstration of their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiffs failed to submit evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the open, ground level of the work site where the injured plaintiff fell did not constitute a passageway, walkway, or other elevated working surface contemplated by 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (d) (see Roberts v Worth Constr., Inc., 21 AD3d 1074, 1077 [2005]; Morra v White, 276 AD2d 536 [2000]; Lawyer v Hoffman, 275 AD2d 541, 542 [2000]; Constantino v Kreisler Borg Florman Gen. Constr. Co., 272 AD2d 361 [2000]).

The appellants’ remaining contention is without merit. Schmidt, J.P., Mastro, Carni and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 A.D.3d 731, 834 N.Y.S.2d 298, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/porazzo-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack