Urbano v. Rockefeller Center North, Inc.
Opinion of the Court
12 NYCRR 23-3.3 is also inapplicable. The pieces of masonry laying on the floor were not “loosened material” within the meaning of that section. Nor did plaintiffs accident result from the collapse of deteriorated walls or floors.
Plaintiffs Labor Law § 200 claim was also properly dismissed. The record contains no evidence that defendants exercised requisite supervisory control, or that there was a dangerous condition of which defendants were on notice (see Bowman v Beach Concerts, Inc., 66 AD3d 596 [2009]; Mitchell v New York Univ., 12 AD3d 200, 201 [2004]).
The affidavit of plaintiffs expert does not support plaintiffs theory since it is based on speculation rather than record facts (see Diaz v New York Downtown Hosp., 99 NY2d 542, 544 [2002]). Concur — Tom, J.P, Friedman, DeGrasse, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.