Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002

Orner v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided April 8, 2002

293 A.D.2d 517; 740 N.Y.S.2d 414; 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3518

Cases that cite this one

18 later published cases cite this decision.

Simon v. Kings Plaza Shopping Ctr. of Flatbush Ave., Inc. (New York Supreme Court, Kings County 2003)
Vasquez v. Gilbane Bldg. Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2024)
Hensel v. Aviator FSC, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
Wellington v. Christa Constr. LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
Escobar v. Safi (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
Andresky v. Wenger Construction Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Andresky v. Wenger Construction Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Sung Kyu-To v. Triangle Equities (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
Ravinov v. Popeye's (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
Cambry v. Gardens (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
Coque v. Wildflower Estates Developers, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
Portillo v. Roby Anne Development, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
Cammon v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
Bornschein v. Shuman (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
Tylutki v. Tishman Technologies (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
Daquaro v. Modern Continental Construction Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
Costa v. Piermont Plaza Realty, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
Ortlieb v. Town of Malone (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golar, J.), dated September 24, ”2001, as denied that branch of his motion which was for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claims against the defendants Morse Diesel International, Inc., and JFK International Air Terminal, LLC, and, upon searching the record, dismissed those claims.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, with costs, the claims pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1) are reinstated insofar as asserted against the respondents, and the branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for summary judgment on those claims is granted.

The plaintiff, an electrician, was injured while working on the ground floor of a construction project when he was hit upon the head and neck by unsecured roofing material that had fallen from the roof. The Supreme Court erred in denying the plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claims against the respondents. Labor Law § 240 (1) was intended to address this sort of elevation-related risk (see Rosa v Macy Co., 272 AD2d 87; Beauchesne v City of New York, 261 AD2d 145). Labor Law § 240 (1) evinces a clear legislative intent to provide exceptional protection for workers against the special hazards that arise when the work site ei*518ther is itself elevated or is positioned below the level where materials or loads are hoisted or secured (see Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 NY2d 494, 500-501).

The respondents’ reliance on Narducci v Manhasset Bay Assoc. (96 NY2d 259), to support the result in the Supreme Court, is misplaced. The Court of Appeals in Narducci clearly recognized that a plaintiff may recover under Labor Law § 240 (1) where an object, falling from a height, was not properly secured. The fact that the waterproofing material in that case was not being hoisted did not prove that it was adequately secured (see Narducci v Manhasset Bay Assoc., supra at 268 [liability where “there is a failure to use necessary and adequate hoisting or securing devices” (emphasis added)]; Outar v City of New York, 286 AD2d 671, 672 [fall of an unsecured dolly from 5V2-foot elevation]). Krausman, J.P., Friedmann, Adams and Crane, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.