Amarnauth Outar v City of New York
Annotate this Case[*1] Amarnauth Outar et al., Respondents,
v
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.
OPINION OF THE COURT
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 [2001]).
Concur: Chief Judge Kaye and Judges G.B. Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo, Read and R.S. Smith.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.