Hamann v. City of New York
| Decision Date | 11 September 1995 |
| Citation | 631 N.Y.S.2d 181,219 A.D.2d 583 |
| Parties | Patrick HAMANN, et al., Appellants, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent, Lamura Contracting Company, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Friedman Biondi & James, New York City (John P. James, of counsel), for appellants.
Marshall & Bellard, Garden City, for defendant third-party plaintiff-respondent.
Kral, Clerkin, Redmond, Ryan, Perry & Girvan, Mineola (Raymond C. Green and George A. Bochling, of counsel), for third-party defendant-respondent.
Before MANGANO, P.J., and O'BRIEN, RITTER and PIZZUTO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lerner, J.), dated June 6, 1994, which denied their motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240(1).
ORDERED that the order is modified, on the law, by adding thereto a provision that upon searching the record partial summary judgment is granted to the defendant and so much of the complaint as asserts a cause of action under Labor Law § 240(1) is dismissed; as so modified, the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
The hazards contemplated by Labor Law § 240(1) are those related to the effects of gravity where protective devices are called for either because of a difference between the elevation level of the required work and a lower level or a difference between the elevation level where the worker is positioned and the higher level of the materials or load being hoisted or secured (see, Rocovich v. Consolidated Edison Co., 78 N.Y.2d 509, 515, 577 N.Y.S.2d 219, 583 N.E.2d 932). In this case, it is uncontroverted that the injured plaintiff Patrick Hamann sustained injuries when he was crushed by a boulder which moved apparently as a result of excavation he was performing in a trench. This hazard was not related to elevation differentials, as contemplated by the statute and the injured plaintiff was therefore not entitled to the type of protection afforded by Labor Law § 240(1) (see, Rocovich v. Consolidated Edison Co., supra). Thus, although the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, upon searching the record, it should have granted partial summary judgment to the City of New York dismissing so much of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
De La Cruz v. V & C Realty II Corp
... ... Index No.: 503204/2017 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS: PART 73 Dated: April 20, 2020 February 16, 2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 232 Motion Date: ... New York Athletic Club of City of N ... Y ., 162 A.D.3d 955, 958, 80 N.Y.S.3d 93). Here, through the testimony of Anthony Ciaccio, ... [he] was therefore not entitled to the type of protection afforded by Labor Law 240(1)" ( Hamann v ... City of New York , 219 A.D.2d 583, 631 N.Y.S.2d 181; see Gampietro v ... Lehrer McGovern Bovis ... ...
-
Rivas v. Seward Park Hous. Corp.
... ... Defendant. Index No. 151607/2016 Motion Seq. Nos. 002, 004 Supreme Court, New York County November 7, 2022 ... Unpublished ... ... PRESENT: ... its favor as a matter of law" (Ryan v Trustees of ... Columbia Univ. in the City of N.Y., Inc., 96 A.D.3d 551, ... 553 [1st Dept 2012][internal quotation marks and citation ... within the scope of Labor Law § 240 (1)]; Hamann v ... City of New York, 219 A.D.2d 583 [2d Dept 1997] ... [Plaintiffs injury as the result of ... ...
-
Lysiak v. Murray Realty Co.
... ... New York State Elec. & Gas Corp., 82 N.Y.2d 781, 783, 604 N.Y.S.2d 540, 624 N.E.2d 677; Ross v ... Montrose Improvement Dist., 224 A.D.2d 777, 778, 636 N.Y.S.2d 942, 943; Hamann v. City of New York, 219 A.D.2d 583, 631 N.Y.S.2d 181, 182; see also, Lehner v. Dormitory Auth. of ... ...
- Galapo v. City of New York