Case Name: Donald J. Webster, Appellant, v. Michael N. Wetzel, Doing Business as Mike Wetzel Remodeling, Respondent, et al., Defendants; Michael N. Wetzel, Doing Business as Mike Wetzel Remodeling, Third-Party Plaintiff, v. John J. Lund, Doing Business as J. Lund Concrete & Trenching, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1999-06-18
Citations: 262 A.D.2d 1038
Docket Number: 
Parties: Donald J. Webster, Appellant, v Michael N. Wetzel, Doing Business as Mike Wetzel Remodeling, Respondent, et al., Defendants. Michael N. Wetzel, Doing Business as Mike Wetzel Remodeling, Third-Party Plaintiff, v John J. Lund, Doing Business as J. Lund Concrete & Trenching, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 262
Pages: 1038–1038

Head Matter:
Donald J. Webster, Appellant, v Michael N. Wetzel, Doing Business as Mike Wetzel Remodeling, Respondent, et al., Defendants. Michael N. Wetzel, Doing Business as Mike Wetzel Remodeling, Third-Party Plaintiff, v John J. Lund, Doing Business as J. Lund Concrete & Trenching, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.
[691 NYS2d 848]

Opinion:
—Order unanimously affirmed without costs.' Memorandum: Plaintiff seeks to recover damages for injuries he sustained when the rear gate of a dump truck gave way and released 10 tons of stone onto him. Supreme Court properly granted the motion of third-party defendant for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff's cross motion for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6). We reject plaintiffs contention that the accident involved an elevation-related hazard covered by Labor Law § 240 (1) (see, Tillman v Triou's Custom Homes, 253 AD2d 254; Phelan v State of New York, 238 AD2d 882, lv denied 90 NY2d 812; Flihan v Cornell Univ., 237 AD2d 921; cf., Orr v Christa Constr., 206 AD2d 881). We also reject plaintiffs contention that 12 NYCRR 23-1.5 (c) is specific enough to support the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim (see, Ozzimo v H.E.S., Inc., 249 AD2d 912; Dann v City of Syracuse, 231 AD2d 855; Williams v White Haven Mem. Park, 227 AD2d 923; contra, Gonzalez v United Parcel Serv., 249 AD2d 210; McCormack v Helmsley-Spear, Inc., 233 AD2d 203). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Cosgrove, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Denman, P. J., Pine, Wisner, Hurlbutt and Callahan, JJ.