Smith v. Extell West 45th Street LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Smith v. Extell West 45th Street LLC

2016 NY Slip Op 7089, 143 A.D.3d 647, 39 N.Y.S.3d 773

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

DecidedOctober 27, 2016

Docket2058 160712/13

StatusPublished

This text of 2016 NY Slip Op 7089 (Smith v. Extell West 45th Street LLC) 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

Smith v. Extell West 45th Street LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 7089, 143 A.D.3d 647, 39 N.Y.S.3d 773 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Kathryn Freed, J.), entered May 15, 2015, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted the motion of defendant Kone, Inc. to the extent it sought dismissal of plaintiff’s Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and his Labor Law § 241 (6) claim insofar as predicated on violations of Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-1.7, unanimously modified, on the law, to reinstate that portion of the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim predicated on violation of Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-1.7 (e), and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Dismissal was properly granted with respect to plaintiff’s Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action in that plaintiff alleged that he was injured while riding in one of the building’s elevators. In this case, the passenger elevator was not a safety device for protecting a construction worker from a risk posed by elevation as contemplated by Labor Law § 240 (1) (see Kleinberg v City of New York, 61 AD3d 436 [1st Dept 2009]; DiPilato v H. Park Cent. Hotel, L.L.C., 17 AD3d 191, 192 [1st Dept 2005]; see also Lindstedt v 813 Assoc., 238 AD2d 386 [2d Dept 1997], lv dismissed 90 NY2d 1007 [1997]).

The court erred, however, in dismissing that portion of plaintiff’s Labor Law § 241 (6) claim to the extent the claim was predicated on violations of Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-1.7 (e). While there were no facts alleged to support a claim that plaintiff was injured as the result of a slipping hazard, plaintiff’s complaint, as supplemented by his affidavit in opposition to defendant’s motion, sufficiently alleged that debris was one of the causes of his fall (see e.g. Picchione v Sweet Constr. Corp., 60 AD3d 510 [1st Dept 2009]; Scotti v Federation Dev. Corp., 289 AD2d 322, 323 [2d Dept 2001]).

Concur — Friedman, J.R, Andrias, Moskowitz, Gische and Gesmer, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Kathryn Freed, J.), entered May 15, 2015, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted the motion of defendant Kone, Inc. to the extent it sought dismissal of plaintiff’s Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and his Labor Law § 241 (6) claim insofar as predicated on violations of Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-1.7, unanimously modified, on the law, to reinstate that portion of the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim predicated on violation of Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-1.7 (e), and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Dismissal was properly granted with respect to plaintiff’s Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action in that plaintiff alleged that he was injured while riding in one of the building’s elevators. In this case, the passenger elevator was not a safety device for protecting a construction worker from a risk posed by elevation as contemplated by Labor Law § 240 (1) (see Kleinberg v City of New York, 61 AD3d 436 [1st Dept 2009]; DiPilato v H. Park Cent. Hotel, L.L.C., 17 AD3d 191, 192 [1st Dept 2005]; see also Lindstedt v 813 Assoc., 238 AD2d 386 [2d Dept 1997], lv dismissed 90 NY2d 1007 [1997]).

The court erred, however, in dismissing that portion of plaintiff’s Labor Law § 241 (6) claim to the extent the claim was predicated on violations of Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-1.7 (e). While there were no facts alleged to support a claim that plaintiff was injured as the result of a slipping hazard, plaintiff’s complaint, as supplemented by his affidavit in opposition to defendant’s motion, sufficiently alleged that debris was one of the causes of his fall (see e.g. Picchione v Sweet Constr. Corp., 60 AD3d 510 [1st Dept 2009]; Scotti v Federation Dev. Corp., 289 AD2d 322, 323 [2d Dept 2001]).

Concur — Friedman, J.R, Andrias, Moskowitz, Gische and Gesmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2016 NY Slip Op 7089, 143 A.D.3d 647, 39 N.Y.S.3d 773, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-extell-west-45th-street-llc-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack