|Outar v City of New York|
|2005 NY Slip Op 04619 [5 NY3d 731]|
|June 9, 2005|
|Court of Appeals|
|Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.|
|As corrected through Wednesday, August 31, 2005|
|Amarnauth Outar et al., Respondents,|
City of New York, Appellant.
Decided June 9, 2005
Outar v City of New York, 11 AD3d 593, affirmed.
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Wallace D. Gossett, Brooklyn (Lawrence A. Silver of counsel), for appellant.
Lawrence P. Biondi, New York City, for respondents.
Fiedelman & McGaw, Jericho (Jeanne A. Cygan, Andrew Zajac, Dawn C. DeSimone, Elizabeth Anne Bannon and Rona Platt of counsel), for Defense Association of New York, Inc., amicus curiae.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed, with costs. The elevation differential between the dolly and plaintiff was sufficient to trigger Labor Law § 240 (1)'s protection, and the dolly was an object that required securing for the purposes of the undertaking (cf. Narducci v Manhasset Bay Assoc., 96 NY2d 259, 268 ).
Concur: Chief Judge Kaye and Judges G.B. Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo, Read and R.S. Smith.