Tronolone v. New York State Department of Transportation

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tronolone v. New York State Department of Transportation

71 A.D.3d 1488, 897 N.Y.S.2d 356

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

DecidedMarch 19, 2010

DocketClaim No. 111315

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 71 A.D.3d 1488 (Tronolone v. New York State Department of Transportation) 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

Tronolone v. New York State Department of Transportation, 71 A.D.3d 1488, 897 N.Y.S.2d 356 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Court of Claims (Jeremiah J. Moriarty, III, J.), entered February 23, 2009. The order granted [1489]*1489the motion of defendant for summary judgment dismissing the claim.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Claimants commenced this Labor Law and common-law negligence action seeking damages for injuries sustained by Caesar Tronolone (claimant) when he slipped on a piece of scrap plywood that had been placed underneath a temporary road sign. The Court of Claims properly granted that part of defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action insofar as it is based on the alleged violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (d). We note that the remaining causes of action were withdrawn prior to the court’s determination. Although 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (d) is sufficiently specific to support a Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action (see Scarupa v Lockport Energy Assoc., 245 AD2d 1038 [1997]), we nevertheless conclude that the piece of plywood on which claimant slipped “is not . . . the sort of [floor,] passageway, walkway, [scaffold, platform or other elevated] working area contemplated by 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (d)” (Barnes v DeFoe/Halmar, 271 AD2d 387, 388 [2000]). Present—Scudder, P.J., Peradotto, Lindley and Sconiers, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of the Court of Claims (Jeremiah J. Moriarty, III, J.), entered February 23, 2009. The order granted [1489]*1489the motion of defendant for summary judgment dismissing the claim.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Claimants commenced this Labor Law and common-law negligence action seeking damages for injuries sustained by Caesar Tronolone (claimant) when he slipped on a piece of scrap plywood that had been placed underneath a temporary road sign. The Court of Claims properly granted that part of defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action insofar as it is based on the alleged violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (d). We note that the remaining causes of action were withdrawn prior to the court’s determination. Although 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (d) is sufficiently specific to support a Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action (see Scarupa v Lockport Energy Assoc., 245 AD2d 1038 [1997]), we nevertheless conclude that the piece of plywood on which claimant slipped “is not . . . the sort of [floor,] passageway, walkway, [scaffold, platform or other elevated] working area contemplated by 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (d)” (Barnes v DeFoe/Halmar, 271 AD2d 387, 388 [2000]). Present—Scudder, P.J., Peradotto, Lindley and Sconiers, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 A.D.3d 1488, 897 N.Y.S.2d 356, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tronolone-v-new-york-state-department-of-transportation-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack