Quattrocchi v. F.J. Sciame Const. Corp.
| Decision Date | 09 September 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. 195 SSM 26.,195 SSM 26. |
| Citation | 866 N.Y.S.2d 592,11 N.Y.3d 757,896 N.E.2d 75 |
| Parties | Anthony QUATTROCCHI, Respondent, v. F.J. SCIAME CONSTRUCTION CORP., Respondent. F.J. Sciame Construction Co., Inc., Sued Herein as F.J. Sciame Construction Corp., Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Complete Construction Consortium, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent, and United Airconditioning Corp., Third-Party Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
The Appellate Division order should be affirmed, with costs, and the certified question answered in the affirmative.
As our holding in Outar v. City of New York indicates, "falling object" liability under Labor Law § 240(1) is not limited to
cases in which the falling object is in the process of being hoisted or secured (5 N.Y.3d 731, 799 N.Y.S.2d 770, 832 N.E.2d 1186 [2005], affg. 11 A.D.3d 593, 782 N.Y.S.2d 658 [2d Dept. 2004]). In this case, plaintiff alleges that he was struck by falling planks that had been placed over open doors as a makeshift shelf to facilitate the installation of an air conditioner above a doorway. We agree with the Appellate Division majority that triable questions of fact preclude summary judgment on plaintiff's Labor Law § 240(1) claim, including whether the planks were adequately secured in light of the purposes of the plank assembly and whether plaintiff caused the accident by jostling the doors after disregarding a warning not to enter the doorway area. Accordingly, the Appellate Division properly modified Supreme Court's order to the extent of denying partial summary judgment on plaintiff's Labor Law § 240(1) claim.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, etc.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Volgassov v. Silverstein Props.
...for the purposes of the undertaking" (Outar v City of New York, 5 N.Y.3d 731, 732 [2005]; see Quattrocchi v F.J. Sciame Constr. Corp., 11 N.Y.3d 757, 758 [2008]) and that the object fell "because of the absence or inadequacy of a safety device of the kind enumerated in the statute" (Narducc......
-
Fabrizi v. 1095 Ave. of the Americas, L.L.C.
...securing for the purposes of the undertaking at the time it fell ” (emphasis added). In Quattrocchi v. F.J. Sciame Constr. Corp., 11 N.Y.3d 757, 758, 866 N.Y.S.2d 592, 896 N.E.2d 75 [2008], a case where plaintiff was struck by falling planks that had been placed over open doors, the Court s......
-
Volgassov v. Silverstein Props.
...for the purposes of the undertaking" (Outar v City of New York, 5 N.Y.3d 731, 732 [2005]; see Quattrocchi v F.J. Sciame Constr. Corp., 11 N.Y.3d 757, 758 [2008]) and that the object fell "because of the absence or inadequacy of a safety device of the kind enumerated in the statute" (Narducc......
-
Oakes v. Wal–Mart Real Estate Bus. Trust
...“limited to cases in which the falling object is in the process of being hoisted or secured” (Quattrocchi v. F.J. Sciame Constr. Corp., 11 N.Y.3d 757, 758–759, 866 N.Y.S.2d 592, 896 N.E.2d 75 [2008];see Wilinski v. 334 E. 92nd Hous. Dev. Fund Corp., 18 N.Y.3d at 9, 935 N.Y.S.2d 551, 959 N.E......