QUATTROCCHI v. SCIAME CONSTRUCTION CORP (2008)

Court of Appeals of New York.

Anthony QUATTROCCHI, Respondent, v. F.J. SCIAME CONSTRUCTION CORP., Respondent.
F.J. Sciame Construction Co., Inc., Sued Herein as F.J. Sciame Construction Corp., Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Complete Construction Consortium, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent, United Airconditioning Corp., Third-Party Defendant-Appellant.

Decided: September 09, 2008

Smith Mazure Director Wilkins Young & Yagerman, P.C., New York City (Joel M. Simon of counsel), for third-party appellant. Sacks and Sacks LLP, New York City (Scott N. Singer of counsel), for respondent. Quirk and Bakalor, P.C., New York City (Dara L. Rosenbaum), for Complete Construction Consortium, Inc., third-party respondent. Nicoletti Hornig & Sweeney, New York City (Barbara A. Sheehan of counsel), for F.J. Sciame Construction Co., Inc., for third-party respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

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

As our holding in Outar v. City of New York indicates, “falling object” liability under Labor Law § 240(1) is not limited to cases in which the falling object is in the process of being hoisted or secured (5 N.Y.3d 731, 799 N.Y.S.2d 770, 832 N.E.2d 1186 [2005], affg. 11 A.D.3d 593, 782 N.Y.S.2d 658 [2d Dept. 2004] ). In this case, plaintiff alleges that he was struck by falling planks that had been placed over open doors as a makeshift shelf to facilitate the installation of an air conditioner above a doorway. We agree with the Appellate Division majority that triable questions of fact preclude summary judgment on plaintiffs Labor Law § 240(1) claim, including whether the planks were adequately secured in light of the purposes of the plank assembly and whether plaintiff caused the accident by jostling the doors after disregarding a warning not to enter the doorway area. Accordingly, the Appellate Division properly modified Supreme Court's order to the extent of denying partial summary judgment on plaintiffs Labor Law § 240(1) claim.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, etc.

memorandum.

Chief Judge KAYE and Judges CIPARICK, GRAFFEO, READ, SMITH, PIGOTT and JONES concur in memorandum.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network