Quinlan v. City of New York
| Decision Date | 02 April 2002 |
| Citation | 739 N.Y.S.2d 706,293 A.D.2d 262 |
| Parties | ANDREW QUINLAN, Appellant,<BR>v.<BR>CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant, and<BR>NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, Respondent. (And a Third-Party Action.)<BR>KREISLER BORG FLORMAN GENERAL CONSTRUCTION CO., INC./HANNIBAL CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC., Second Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent,<BR>v.<BR>WDF, INC., et al., Second Third-Party Defendants-Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
The Industrial Code violations alleged in plaintiff's proposed amended bill of particulars do not support a cause of action under Labor Law § 241 (6). Plaintiff alleges that he was injured when a piece of metal inside a wall separating two rooms dislodged and fell on his hand as he prepared to patch a large hole that had been cut in the wall in order to bring a bathtub into the bathroom of an apartment being renovated. Since there is no evidence that plaintiff was working in or frequenting an area that was "normally exposed to falling material or objects" the proposed claim based on 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (a) is without merit and was properly rejected (see, Daly v City of New York, 254 AD2d 214). Nor does 12 NYCRR 23-2.1 (b), which addresses "disposal of debris," avail plaintiff, since it "does not sufficiently set forth `a specific standard of conduct as opposed to a general reiteration of common-law principles' for its violation to qualify as a predicate for a Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action" (Mendoza v Marche Libre Assoc., 256 AD2d 133). Also unavailing is 12 NYCRR 23-3.3 regulating "demolition by hand," since neither the creation of the hole in the wall nor plaintiff's attempt to repair it constituted "demolition work," defined in 12 NYCRR 23-1.4 (b) (16) as "work incidental to or associated with the total or partial dismantling or razing of a building or other structure including the removing or dismantling of machinery or other equipment" (see, Zuniga v Stam Realty, 169 Misc 2d 1004, 1010, affd 245 AD2d 561, lv denied 91 NY2d 813).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nunez v. Levy, 2008 NY Slip Op 31115(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 4/15/2008)
...work which is not covered under Labor Law § 241(6). See, Sparkes v. Berger, 11 A.D.3d 601 (2nd Dep't 2004); Quinlan v. City of New York, 293 A.D.2d 262 (1st Dep't 2002); Bombard. v. Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Co., 229 A.D.2d 837 (3rd Dep't 1996); lv. to app. dism. in part, den. in part 89 N......
-
Chiarello v. Turner Constr. Co.
...of conduct . . . for its violation to qualify as a predicate for a Labor Law § 241(6) cause of action." Quinlan v. City of New York, 293 A.D.2d 262, 263 (1st Dept. 2002); Mendoza v. Marche Libre Associates, 256 A.D.2d 133 (1st Dept. 1998). Finally, section 23-2.2 ("concrete work") is inappl......
-
Clemente v. 205 W. 103 Owners Corp.
...material. See Mercado v. TPT Brooklyn Assoc., LLC, 38 A.D.3d 732, 832 N.Y.S.2d 93 (2d Dep't 2007); Quinlan v. City of New York, 293 A.D.2d 262, 739 N.Y.S.2d 706 (1st Dep't 2002); Amato v. State, 241 A.D.2d 400, 660 N.Y.S.2d 576 (1st Dep't 1997). The cause of action is thus dismissed insofar......
-
Casalini v. Alexander Wolf & Son
...which addresses "disposal of debris," is not sufficiently specific to support a Labor Law § 241(6) claim. See Quintan v. City of New York, 293 A.D.2d 262, 262 (1st Dept 2002); Mendoza v. Marche Libre Assoc., 256 A.D.2d 133, 133 (1st Dept 1998). Thus, the ownership defendants and Wolf are en......