Case Name: Francisco Dilluvio et al., Appellants, v. City of New York, Respondent
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2000-11-30
Citations: 95 N.Y.2d 928
Docket Number: 
Parties: Francisco Dilluvio et al., Appellants, v City of New York, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 95
Pages: 928–929

Head Matter:
[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:
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.