Outar v. City of New York

N.Y.

Court: New York Court of Appeals

Citations: 5 N.Y.3d 731, 799 N.Y.S.2d 770, 832 N.E.2d 1186, 2005 N.Y. LEXIS 1218

Decision Date: 6/9/2005

Jurisdiction: NY

Bluebook Citation: Outar v. City of New York, 5 N.Y.3d 731, 799 N.Y.S.2d 770, 832 N.E.2d 1186, 2005 N.Y. LEXIS 1218 (2005)

More Cases: N.Y. decisions from 2005

Citation analytics

How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.

★Highly CitedTop 3% most-cited · cited by 84 decisions

Citing decisions

Authorities cited

Courts citing

Citations by decade

2000s2010s2020s

Courts citing this case

N.Y. App. Div.70

N.Y. Sup. Kings5

N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty.4

N.Y.2

N.Y. Sup. Ct.2

W.D.N.Y.1

Most recently cited by10

2026Wilson v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank NA N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty.
2025Isaacs v. Thor 180 Livingston LLC N.Y. Sup. Kings
2025Joya v. E 31 Partners, LLC N.Y. App. Div.
2025Moises-Ortiz v. FDB Acquisition LLC N.Y. App. Div.
2025Hempstead v. Hammer & Steel, Inc. N.Y. App. Div.
2025Geloso v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J. N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty.
2024Vasquez v. Gilbane Bldg. Co. N.Y. App. Div.
2024Macancela v. E.W. Howell Co. LLC N.Y. Sup. Kings
2024Meza v. Dutch Vortex LLC N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty.
2024Sobral v. Townhouse Bldrs. Inc. N.Y. Sup. Kings

Cites 1 case

Narducci v. Manhasset Bay Associates

Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.

Opinion

Amarnauth Outar et al., Respondents, v City of New York, Appellant.

Attorneys

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.

majority

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 (l)’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.