Legal Opinion

Outar v. City of New York

New York Court of Appeals

Decided June 9, 2005PublishedCited by 89 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed, with costs. The elevation differential between the dolly and plaintiff was sufficient to trigger Labor Law § 240 (l)’s protection, and the dolly was an object that required securing for the purposes of the undertaking (cf. Narducci v Manhasset Bay Assoc., 96 NY2d 259, 268 [2001]).

Concur: Chief Judge Kaye and Judges G.B. Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo, Read and R.S. Smith.

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Narducci v. Manhasset Bay AssociatesNew York Court of Appeals · 2001

3Cited by89 opinions

  1. Fabrizi v. 1095 Avenue of Americas, L.L.C.New York Court of Appeals · 2014
  2. Quattrocchi v. F.J. Sciame Construction Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 2008
  3. Coque v. Wildflower Estates Developers, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2006
  4. Buckley v. Columbia Grammar & PreparatoryAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2007
  5. Marin v. AP-Amsterdam 1661 ParkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009

84 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API