History
  • No items yet
midpage
Dilluvio v. City of New York
721 N.Y.S.2d 603
| NY | 2000
|
Check Treatment
95 N.Y.2d 928 (2000)
744 N.E.2d 138
721 N.Y.S.2d 603

FRANCISCO DILLUVIO et al., Appellants,
v.
CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondent.

Court of Appeals of the State of New York.

Decided November 30, 2000.

*929 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.

Before: Chief Judge KAYE and Judges SMITH, LEVINE, CIPARICK, WESLEY and ROSENBLATT concur in memorandum.

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).

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

Case Details

Case Name: Dilluvio v. City of New York
Court Name: New York Court of Appeals
Date Published: Nov 30, 2000
Citation: 721 N.Y.S.2d 603
Court Abbreviation: NY
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.