1 No. 148 SSM 5
Alfred Bond,
Appellant,
v.
York Hunter Construction, Inc.,
Defendant,
v.
Crossbay Contracting, Third-Party Respondent.
_________________________________________________________________
2000 NY Int. 99
September 19, 2000
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before
publication in the New York Reports.
Submitted by Bruce J. Gitlin, for appellant.
Submitted by Joseph J. Andriola, for respondent.
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM:
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
After completing his work for the day, plaintiff, a demolition worker
employed by third-party defendant, began to alight from his demolition
vehicle. The vehicle was equipped with a track system on each side to
maneuver it through the construction site. The vehicle was not
equipped with a step to assist operators in their entry or exit from
the vehicle. Plaintiff stepped down from the cab of the vehicle and
placed his foot onto the vehicle's track, using it like a step.
Plaintiff claimed his foot slipped off the track because grease had
previously leaked onto the track's surface. Plaintiff fell
approximately three feet to the ground and suffered injury.
As a matter of law, the risk of alighting from the construction
vehicle was not an elevation-related risk which calls for any of the
protective devices of the types listed in Labor Law § 240(1) (see,
Rocovich v Consolidated Edison Co., , 78 NY2d 509, 514-515).
Moreover, plaintiff failed to adduce any evidence to support his
section 200 claim that defendant had created, or had prior notice of,
the greasy condition of the track (see, Lombardi v Stout, , 80 NY2d
290, 294-295). Finally, plaintiff's arguments under the Industrial
Code regulations are either unpreserved or without merit.
SNIPPETS:
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York
for appellant.
for respondent.
After completing his work for the day, plaintiff, a demolition worker employed by third-party
The vehicle was equipped with a track system on each side to maneuver it through the
Plaintiff stepped down from the cab of the vehicle and placed his foot onto the vehicle's
As a matter of law, the risk of alighting from the construction vehicle was not an
Moreover, plaintiff failed to adduce any evidence to support his section 200 claim that
plaintiff's arguments under the Industrial Code regulations are either unpreserved or without
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules, order affirmed, with costs,
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Smith, Levine, Ciparick, Wesley and Rosenblatt concur.
|
