Legal Opinion
Dilluvio v. City of New York
New York Court of Appeals
Decided November 30, 2000PublishedCited by 25 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, and the certified question answered in the affirmative.
The Appellate Division correctly determined that, as a matter of law, the accident did not result from an elevation-related risk (see, Bond v York Hunter Constr., 95 NY2d 883; Rocovich v Consolidated Edison Co., 78 NY2d 509, 514-515).
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Smith, Levine, Ciparick, Wesley and Rosenblatt concur in memorandum.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Rocovich v. Consolidated Edison Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1991
- Bond v. York Hunter Construction, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 2000
3Cited by25 opinions
- Toefer v. Long Islan Rail RoadNew York Court of Appeals · 2005
- Rice v. Board of EducationAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2003
- Lavore v. Kir Munsey Park 020Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2007
- Modeste v. Mega Contracting, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2007
- Vaneer v. 993 Intervale Avenue Housing Development Fund Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2004
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.