Case ID: ny3d_5/html/0731-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[832 NE2d 1186, 799 NYS2d 770]
    Amarnauth Outar et al., Respondents, v City of New York, Appellant.
    Decided June 9, 2005
    
      APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
    
      Wallace D. Gossett, Brooklyn (.Lawrence A. Silver of counsel), for appellant.
    
      Lawrence P. Biondi, New York City, for respondents.
    
      Fiedelman & McGaw, Jericho (Jeanne A. Cygan, Andrew Zajac, Dawn C. DeSimone, Elizabeth Anne Bannon and Rona Platt of counsel), for Defense Association of New York, Inc., amicus curiae.
   OPINION OF THE COURT

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed, with costs. The elevation differential between the dolly and plaintiff was sufficient to trigger Labor Law § 240 (l)’s protection, and the dolly was an object that required securing for the purposes of the undertaking (cf. Narducci v Manhasset Bay Assoc., 96 NY2d 259, 268 [2001]).

Concur: Chief Judge Kaye and Judges G.B. Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo, Read and R.S. Smith.