Case ID: ny-2d_95/html/0928-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[744 NE2d 138, 721 NYS2d 603]
    Francisco Dilluvio et al., Appellants, v City of New York, Respondent.
    Decided November 30, 2000
    
      APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
    
      Roura & Melamed, New York City (Alexander J. Wulwick of counsel), for appellants.
    
      Savona & Scully, New York City (Joseph F.X. Savona of counsel), for respondent.
   OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

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

The Appellate Division correctly determined that, as a matter of law, the accident did not result from an elevation-related risk (see, Bond v York Hunter Constr., 95 NY2d 883; Rocovich v Consolidated Edison Co., 78 NY2d 509, 514-515).

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Smith, Levine, Ciparick, Wesley and Rosenblatt concur in memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed, etc.