Case Name: Amarnauth Outar et al., Respondents, v. City of New York, Appellant
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2005-06-09
Citations: 5 N.Y.3d 731
Docket Number: 
Parties: Amarnauth Outar et al., Respondents, v City of New York, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 5
Pages: 731–732

Head Matter:
[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:
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.