From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bloch v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 19, 2000
278 A.D.2d 351 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

Submitted November 17, 2000.

December 19, 2000.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lonschein, J.), dated September 16, 1999, which granted the separate motions of the defendant City of New York and the defendant New York Telephone Company for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Sullivan Papain Block McGrath Cannavo, P.C., New York, N Y (Thomas Mongelli and Stephen C. Glasser of counsel), for appellants.

Michael D. Hess, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Leonard Koerner and Ellen B. Fishman of counsel), for respondent City of New York.

Montfort, Healy, McGuire Salley, Garden City, N.Y. (Donald S. Neuman, Jr., and John P. Rooney of counsel), for respondent New York Telephone Company.

Before: ANITA R. FLORIO, J.P., LEO F. McGINITY, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The plaintiff Mitchell E. Bloch (hereinafter the injured plaintiff), a police officer in the Organized Crime Bureau of the New York City Police Department, was injured when he fell from a telephone pole while removing a pen register device.

The Supreme Court properly dismissed the plaintiffs' Labor Law § 240(1) claim, as the activity engaged in by the injured plaintiff was not an alteration of a structure within the meaning of the statute (see, Labor Law § 240; Joblon v. Solow, 91 N.Y.2d 457; Luthi v. Long Is. Resource Corp., 251 A.D.2d 554). Similarly, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the claim pursuant to Labor Law § 241(6), as the injured plaintiff was not involved in construction work as defined by 12 NYCRR 23-1.4(b)(13) (see, Kesselbach v. Liberty Haulage, 182 A.D.2d 741). Moreover, the plaintiffs' common-law negligence claim is barred by the so-called firefighter's rule, as the injury sustained was related to the particular dangers which the injured plaintiff was expected to assume as part of his duties (see, Zanghi v. Niagra Frontier Transp. Commn., 85 N.Y.2d 423, 438-439; see also, Cooper v. City of New York, 81 N.Y.2d 584, 590). The plaintiffs' remaining contention is without merit.


Summaries of

Bloch v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 19, 2000
278 A.D.2d 351 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Bloch v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:MITCHELL E. BLOCH, ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, ET AL.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Dec 19, 2000

Citations

278 A.D.2d 351 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
717 N.Y.S.2d 361

Citing Cases

Gammons v. City of New York

Plaintiff's argument must be rejected. The firefighter's rule has been held to bar common-law negligence…