Masullo v. City of New York
| Citation | 677 N.Y.S.2d 162,253 A.D.2d 541 |
| Parties | , 1998 N.Y. Slip Op. 7561 Angelo MASULLO, et al., Appellants, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondent (And A Third-Party Action). |
| Decision Date | 31 August 1998 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
Purcell & Ingrao, P.C., Mineola (Anthony Marino and George F. Sacco, of counsel), for Appellants.
Quirk and Bakalor, P.C., New York City (Timothy J. Keane, of counsel), for respondent.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated March 26, 1997, as denied their motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability based upon a violation of Labor Law § 240(1) and granted the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing that cause of action.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The plaintiff Angelo Masullo, an employee of the third-party defendant A.F.C. Enterprises, Inc. (hereinafter AFC), was injured at a pumping station owned by the defendant City of New York (hereinafter the City). AFC had been retained by the City for the purpose of replacing certain sewer pipes located at the pumping station.
Having sustained injuries as a result of his falling into a manhole, the injured plaintiff commenced an action based, inter alia, on Labor Law § 240(1). The Supreme Court granted the City's cross motion for summary judgment on the ground that the plaintiffs' proposed Labor Law § 240 claim lacked merit, for the injury was not the result of an elevation-related hazard.
While the manhole may have been negligently left uncovered, this is not one of the gravity-related hazards or perils subject to the safeguards prescribed by Labor Law § 240(1) (Rocovich v. Consolidated Edison Co., 78 N.Y.2d 509, 577 N.Y.S.2d 219, 583 N.E.2d 932). To the contrary, the fall was the "type of 'ordinary and usual' peril a worker is commonly exposed to at a construction site" (Misseritti v. Mark IV Constr. Co., 86 N.Y.2d 487, 489, 634 N.Y.S.2d 35, 657 N.E.2d 1318; Rodriguez v. Margaret Tietz Ctr. for Nursing Care, 84 N.Y.2d 841, 616 N.Y.S.2d 900, 640 N.E.2d 1134; McCague v. Walsh Constr., 225 A.D.2d 530, 638 N.Y.S.2d 752).
Additionally, Labor Law § 240(1) is applicable to work performed at heights or where the work itself involves risks related to differentials in elevation (see, Groves v. Land's End Hous....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carey v. Five Bros., Inc.
...287 A.D.2d 421, 422, 731 N.Y.S.2d 462;D'Egidio v. Frontier Ins. Co., 270 A.D.2d 763, 765, 704 N.Y.S.2d 750;Masullo v. City of New York, 253 A.D.2d 541, 542, 677 N.Y.S.2d 162;cf. Nieves v. Five Boro A.C. & Refrig. Corp., 93 N.Y.2d 914, 916, 690 N.Y.S.2d 852, 712 N.E.2d 1219;Klos v. New York ......
-
Spence v. Island Estates at Mt. Sinai II, LLC
...Co., Inc., 7 A.D.3d 739, 776 N.Y.S.2d 893; Alvia v. Teman Elec. Contr., 287 A.D.2d 421, 731 N.Y.S.2d 462; Masullo v. City of New York, 253 A.D.2d 541, 677 N.Y.S.2d 162). Moreover, in the plaintiff's opposition to the defendants' motion, he conceded that Labor Law § 240(1) was inapplicable t......
-
Rossi v. Mount Vernon Hosp.
...the special elevation-related risks for which the safety devices in Labor Law § 240(1) were prescribed (see, Masullo v. City of New York, 253 A.D.2d 541, 677 N.Y.S.2d 162; Mazzu v. Benderson Dev. Co., 224 A.D.2d 1009, 637 N.Y.S.2d 540; see also, Misseritti v. Mark IV Constr. Co., 86 N.Y.2d ......
-
Bonkoski v. Condos Bros. Constr. Corp.
...(see Rocovich v Consolidated Edison Co., 78 N.Y.2d 509, 514; Carey v Five Bros., Inc., 106 A.D.3d 938, 940; Masullo v City of New York, 253 A.D.2d 541, 542; cf. Piccone v Metropolitan Tr. Auth., 205 A.D.3d 628). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvar......