Legal Opinion
Quattrocchi v. F.J. Sciame Construction Corp.
New York Court of Appeals
Decided September 9, 2008PublishedCited by 62 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
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 *759cases in which the falling object is in the process of being hoisted or secured (5 NY3d 731 [2005], affg 11 AD3d 593 [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…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Outar v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 2005
- Outar v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2004
3Cited by62 opinions
- Wilinski v. 334 East 92nd Housing Development Fund Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 2011
- Fabrizi v. 1095 Avenue of Americas, L.L.C.New York Court of Appeals · 2014
- Kropp v. Town of ShandakenAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
- Jock v. Landmark Healthcare Facilities, LLCAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
- Sung Kyu-To v. Triangle EquitiesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
57 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.