From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Munoz v. DJZ Realty, LLC

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jun 29, 2005
5 N.Y.3d 747 (N.Y. 2005)

Summary

holding that the activity in which the plaintiff was engaged, i.e. , applying a new advertisement to the face of a billboard, was "more akin to cosmetic maintenance or decorative modification than to ‘altering’ for purposes of Labor Law § 240," since it merely "changed the outward appearance of the billboard, but did not change the billboard's structure"

Summary of this case from Crescent Beach Club LLC v. Indian Harbor Ins. Co.

Opinion

169.

Decided June 29, 2005.

APPEAL, by permission of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, from an order of that Court, entered February 7, 2005. The Appellate Division modified, on the law, an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (John R. LaCava, J.), which had granted that branch of defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action and denied that branch of his cross motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability on that cause of action. The modification consisted of denying that branch of the motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action. The following question was certified by the Appellate Division: "Was the decision and order of this court, dated February 7, 2005, properly made?"

Munoz v. DJZ Realty, LLC, 15 AD3d 363, reversed.

Law Offices of Craig P. Curcio, Middletown ( Gordon T. Sakow of counsel), for appellant. Brecher Fishman Pasternack Popish Heller Reiff Walsh, P.C., New York City ( Frank Gulino of counsel), for respondent.

Chief Judge KAYE and Judges G.B. SMITH, CIPARICK, ROSENBLATT, GRAFFEO, READ and R.S. SMITH concur in memorandum.


OPINION OF THE COURT

MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action granted. The certified question should be answered in the negative.

Plaintiff was injured in a fall while applying a new advertisement to the face of a billboard that sat atop a building owned by defendant. Plaintiff's activities may have changed the outward appearance of the billboard, but did not change the billboard's structure, and thus were more akin to cosmetic maintenance or decorative modification than to "altering" for purposes of Labor Law § 240 (1) ( see Joblon v. Solow, 91 NY2d 457, 465).

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals ( 22 NYCRR 500.4), order reversed, etc.


Summaries of

Munoz v. DJZ Realty, LLC

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jun 29, 2005
5 N.Y.3d 747 (N.Y. 2005)

holding that the activity in which the plaintiff was engaged, i.e. , applying a new advertisement to the face of a billboard, was "more akin to cosmetic maintenance or decorative modification than to ‘altering’ for purposes of Labor Law § 240," since it merely "changed the outward appearance of the billboard, but did not change the billboard's structure"

Summary of this case from Crescent Beach Club LLC v. Indian Harbor Ins. Co.

holding that plaintiff's work changing face of billboard was decorative rather than structural and therefore fell outside scope of section 240

Summary of this case from In re World Trade Ctr. Lower Manhattan Disaster Site Litig.

In Munoz v. DJZ Realty LLC, 5 N. Y.3d 747, 800 N.Y.S.2d 866 (2005), the Court of Appeals held that the plaintiffs work did not satisfy the alteration statutory requirement.

Summary of this case from Bodtman v. Living Manor Love, Inc.
Case details for

Munoz v. DJZ Realty, LLC

Case Details

Full title:LARRY MUNOZ, Respondent, et al., Plaintiff, v. DJZ REALTY, LLC, Appellant…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Jun 29, 2005

Citations

5 N.Y.3d 747 (N.Y. 2005)
800 N.Y.S.2d 866
834 N.E.2d 776

Citing Cases

Saint v. Syracuse Supply Co.

Plaintiffs also asserted claims under Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence, but during the course of the…

Saint v. Syracuse Supply Co.

denied20 N.Y.3d 861, 961 N.Y.S.2d 835, 985 N.E.2d 431). Rather, that activity is “more akin to cosmetic…