Turczynski v. City of New York
Citation | 793 N.Y.S.2d 132,2005 NY Slip Op 02835,17 A.D.3d 450 |
Decision Date | 11 April 2005 |
Docket Number | 2004-01533. |
Parties | ANTONI TURCZYNSKI, Appellant, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent. PASSAL CONTRACTING CORP., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent. |
Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.
Labor Law § 240 (1) applies where the falling of an object is related to "a significant risk inherent in . . . the relative elevation . . . at which materials or loads must be positioned or secured" (Rocovich v Consolidated Edison Co., 78 NY2d 509, 514 [1991]). Thus, to establish liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), a plaintiff must show more than simply that an object fell, thereby causing injury to a worker (see Blake v Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of N.Y. City, 1 NY3d 280, 288-289 [2003]). A plaintiff must show that "the object fell, while being hoisted or secured, because of the absence or inadequacy of a safety device of the kind enumerated in the statute" (Narducci v Manhasset Bay Assoc., 96 NY2d 259, 268 [2001]; see Belcastro v Hewlett-Woodmere Union Free School Dist. No. 14, 286 AD2d 744 [2001]). Here, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the plaintiff's complaint insofar as it was predicated on Labor Law § 240 (1) because the plaintiff's activities did not fall within the special elevation risks encompassed by Labor Law § 240 (1) (see Melo v Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., 92 NY2d 909 [1998]; Phillips v City of New York, 228 AD2d 570 [1996]; Schreiner v Cremosa Cheese Corp., 202 AD2d 657 [1994]).
Furthermore, since the plaintiff failed to cite any concrete provision of the Industrial Code that could be said to have been violated by the defendant, the plaintiff's complaint insofar as it was predicated on Labor Law § 241 (6) was properly dismissed (see Katrakazos v Frank Bahar, Inc., 297 AD2d 332, 333 [2002]; Brechue v Town of Wheatfield,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
De La Cruz v. V & C Realty II Corp
...or secured, because of the absence or inadequacy of a safety device of the kind enumerated in the statute' " (Turczynski v. City of New York, 17 A.D.3d 450, 451, 793 N.Y.S.2d 132, quoting Narducci v. Manhasset Bay Assoc., supra at 268, 727 N.Y.S.2d 37, 750 N.E.2d 1085). Here, the plaintiff ......
-
Simmons v. City of N.Y.
...Therefore, "a plaintiff must show more than simply that an object fell, thereby causing injury to a worker" ( Turczynski v. City of New York, 17 A.D.3d 450, 451, 793 N.Y.S.2d 132 ). "[A] plaintiff must show that, at the time the object fell, it was being hoisted or secured, or that the fall......
-
Rodriguez v. DSW Homes LLS
...of the absence or inadequacy of a safety device of the kind enumerated in the statute" (id. quoting Turczynski v. City of New York, 17 A.D.3d 450, 451 [2d Dept 2005]). Just as in Natale, the Plaintiff was not working at an elevation and the hazard Plaintiff encountered was not gravity relat......
-
McBride v. E.W. Howell, Co.
...of the absence or inadequacy of a safety device of the kind enumerated in the statute'" (Id. citing Turczynski v. City of New York, 17 A.D.3d 450, 451, quoting Narducci v. Manhasset Bay Assoc, supra at 288). As in Natale, supra, the hazard McBride encountered was not related to an elevation......