Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Eyal OFRI, et al., Appellants, v. WALDBAUM, INC., Defendant Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent; Lodato Enterprises, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Oshrin, J.), entered May 31, 2000, as, upon an order entered May 1, 2000, inter alia, granting those branches of the defendant's motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action predicated upon Labor Law §§ 241(6) and 240(1) and denying their cross motion for partial summary judgment under Labor Law § 240(1), dismissed the causes of action pursuant to Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6).
ORDERED that the plaintiffs' notice of appeal from the order is deemed a premature notice of appeal from the judgment (see, CPLR 5520[c] ); and it is further,
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
Immediately prior to demolishing a wall upon which numerous mirrored panels were affixed, the plaintiff Eyal Ofri (hereinafter the plaintiff) allegedly was injured by a falling piece of a broken mirror. The mirrors were mounted on the wall approximately five feet above the floor, and the plaintiff stood directly on the floor as he removed each panel from its mounting frame. Contrary to the plaintiffs' contentions, as the Court of Appeals has now determined, this is not the kind of hazard contemplated by Labor Law § 240(1), and thus the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendant's motion which was to dismiss the plaintiffs' cause of action predicated thereon (see, Narducci v. Manhasset Bay Assoc., 96 N.Y.2d 259, revg. 270 A.D.2d 60, 704 N.Y.S.2d 233).
The Supreme Court correctly dismissed the plaintiffs' cause of action predicated upon Labor Law § 241(6) as the plaintiff's injuries were not caused by a hazard created by the demolition work, rendering the relied-upon regulation, 12 NYCRR 23-3.3(c), inapplicable (see, Monroe v. City of New York, 67 A.D.2d 89, 100, 414 N.Y.S.2d 718).
The plaintiffs' remaining contentions are without merit.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: July 16, 2001
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)