From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Solano v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 26, 2010
77 A.D.3d 571 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)

Opinion

No. 3477.

October 26, 2010.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Saliann Scarpulla, J.), entered October 6, 2009, which, insofar as appealed from, denied plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action and granted defendant Great American Construction Corp.'s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing that cause of action as against it, unanimously modified, on the law, to award summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action as against the City, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Raymond Schwartzberg Associates, PLLC, New York (Raymond B. Schwartzberg of counsel), for appellant.

Law Offices of Charles J. Siegel, New York (Jack L. Cohen of counsel), for respondents.

Before: Andrias, J.P., Nardelli, Moskowitz and DeGrasse, JJ.


As the plywood plank that struck plaintiff had been deliberately dropped from a window it does not constitute a "falling object" under Labor Law § 240 (1) ( see Roberts v General Elec. Co., 97 NY2d 737, 738; see also Boyle v 42nd St. Dev. Project, Inc., 38 AD3d 404, 407). Accordingly, the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action should be dismissed as against the City as well as against Great American ( see Merritt Hill Vineyards v Windy Hgts. Vineyard, 61 NY2d 106, 111).


Summaries of

Solano v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 26, 2010
77 A.D.3d 571 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
Case details for

Solano v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:FRANK SOLANO, Appellant, v. CITY OF NEW YORK et al., Respondents, et al.…

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

Date published: Oct 26, 2010

Citations

77 A.D.3d 571 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 7612
909 N.Y.S.2d 357

Citing Cases

Reyes v. Sligo Constr. Corp.

A plaintiff must show that at the time the object fell it was "being hoisted or secured" (Narducci v…

Rivera v. Muss Dev., LLC

Labor Law § 240 (1) is inapplicable here. The sheetrock debris "was not a material being hoisted or a load…