New York Court of Appeals, 2010

Belding v. Verizon New York, Inc.

New York Court of Appeals · Decided February 18, 2010 · Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones Concur in Memorandum

925 N.E.2d 577; 14 N.Y.3d 751; 898 N.Y.S.2d 539 (North Eastern Reporter, Second Series)

Cases that cite this one

9 later published cases cite this decision.

Mananghaya v. Bronx-Lebanon Hosp. Ctr. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
Crescent Beach Club LLC v. Indian Harbor Insurance Company (District Court, E.D. New York 2020)
Goodwin v. Dix Hills Jewish Center (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
CUSTER, KEITH J. v. JORDAN, JONATHAN (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Amendola v. Rheedlen 125th Street, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Amendola v. Rheedlen 125th Street, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Custer v. Jordan (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Custer v. Jordan (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Santiago v. Rusciano & Son, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed with costs. The certified question should be answered in the affirmative.

Applying the bomb blast film to the lobby windows, in and of itself, qualifies as a significant alteration (see Labor Law § 240 *753 [1]; Joblon v Solow, 91 NY2d 457, 465 [1998]). BlastGARD significantly altered the configuration or composition of the structure by changing the way the lobby windows react to explosions, impacts and the elements. The effects of this one-time security enhancement distinguish the activity from affixing an advertisement on a billboard, a more frequent change that has less structural effect (see Munoz v DJZ Realty, LLC, 5 NY3d 747 [2005]).

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur in memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, etc.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.