BELDING v. VERIZON NEW YORK INC (2010)

Court of Appeals of New York.

David BELDING, Respondent, v. VERIZON NEW YORK, INC., et al., Appellants.

Decided: February 18, 2010

Cozen O'Connor, New York City (Edward Hayum of counsel), for appellants. Kelner & Kelner, New York City (Gail S. Kelner of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

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

Applying the bomb blast film to the lobby windows, in and of itself, qualifies as a significant alteration (see Labor Law § 240[1]; Joblon v. Solow, 91 N.Y.2d 457, 465 [1998] ). BlastGARD significantly altered the configuration or composition of the structure by changing the way the lobby windows react to explosions, impacts and the elements. The effects of this one-time security enhancement distinguish the activity from affixing an advertisement on a billboard, a more frequent change that has less structural effect (see Munoz v. DJZ Realty, LLC, 5 NY3d 747 [2005] ).

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

Chief Judge LIPPMAN 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Out of date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