Quattrocchi v F.J. Sciame Constr. Corp.
2008 NY Slip Op 06736 [11 NY3d 757]
September 9, 2008
Court of Appeals
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
As corrected through Wednesday, October 22, 2008

Anthony Quattrocchi, Respondent,
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, and United Airconditioning Corp., Third-Party Defendant-Appellant.

Decided September 9, 2008

Quattrocchi v F.J. Sciame Constr. Corp., 44 AD3d 377, affirmed.


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.

{**11 NY3d at 758} 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{**11 NY3d at 759} cases in which the falling object is in the process of being hoisted or secured (5 NY3d 731 [2005], affg 11 AD3d 593 [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 plaintiff's 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 plaintiff's Labor Law § 240 (1) claim.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur in memorandum.

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