Hyperlawhypertext legal databasebeta Dilluvio v. City of New York 95 N.Y.2d 928

← Cases

Dilluvio v. City of New York

95 N.Y.2d 928 Court N.Y. Decision date 2000-11-30 English

Contents

Majority

p. 928
[744 NE2d 138, 721 NYS2d 603]
Francisco Dilluvio et al., Appellants, v City of New York, Respondent.
Decided November 30, 2000
p. 929
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Roura & Melamed, New York City (Alexander J. Wulwick of counsel), for appellants.
Savona & Scully, New York City (Joseph F.X. Savona of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

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

The Appellate Division correctly determined that, as a matter of law, the accident did not result from an elevation-related risk (see, Bond v York Hunter Constr., 95 NY2d 883 ; Rocovich v Consolidated Edison Co., 78 NY2d 509 , 514-515).

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Smith, Levine, Ciparick, Wesley and Rosenblatt concur in memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed, etc.

Cases cited