Solano v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Solano v. City of New York

77 A.D.3d 571, 909 N.Y.S.2d 357

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

DecidedOctober 26, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 77 A.D.3d 571 (Solano 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

Solano v. City of New York, 77 A.D.3d 571, 909 N.Y.S.2d 357 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

[572]*572Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Saliann Scarpulla, J.), entered October 6, 2009, which, insofar as appealed from, denied plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action and granted defendant Great American Construction Corp.’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing that cause of action as against it, unanimously modified, on the law, to award summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action as against the City, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

As the plywood plank that struck plaintiff had been deliberately dropped from a window it does not constitute a “falling object” under Labor Law § 240 (1) (see Roberts v General Elec. Co., 97 NY2d 737, 738 [2002]; see also Boyle v 42nd St. Dev. Project, Inc., 38 AD3d 404, 407 [2007]). Accordingly, the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action should be dismissed as against the City as well as against Great American (see Merritt Hill Vineyards v Windy Hgts. Vineyard, 61 NY2d 106, 111 [1984]). Concur—Andrias, J.P., Nardelli, Moskowitz and DeGrasse, JJ.

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

[572]*572Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Saliann Scarpulla, J.), entered October 6, 2009, which, insofar as appealed from, denied plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action and granted defendant Great American Construction Corp.’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing that cause of action as against it, unanimously modified, on the law, to award summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action as against the City, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

As the plywood plank that struck plaintiff had been deliberately dropped from a window it does not constitute a “falling object” under Labor Law § 240 (1) (see Roberts v General Elec. Co., 97 NY2d 737, 738 [2002]; see also Boyle v 42nd St. Dev. Project, Inc., 38 AD3d 404, 407 [2007]). Accordingly, the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action should be dismissed as against the City as well as against Great American (see Merritt Hill Vineyards v Windy Hgts. Vineyard, 61 NY2d 106, 111 [1984]). Concur—Andrias, J.P., Nardelli, Moskowitz and DeGrasse, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

77 A.D.3d 571, 909 N.Y.S.2d 357, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/solano-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack