| Belding v Verizon N.Y., Inc. |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 01379 [14 NY3d 751] |
| February 18, 2010 |
| Court of Appeals |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| As corrected through Wednesday, April 28, 2010 |
| David Belding, Respondent, v Verizon New York, Inc., et al., Appellants. |
Decided February 18, 2010
Belding v Verizon N.Y., Inc., 65 AD3d 414, affirmed.
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Cozen O'Connor, New York City (Edward Hayum of counsel), for appellants.
Kelner & Kelner, New York City (Gail S. Kelner of counsel), for respondent.
Memorandum. [*2]
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed with costs. The certified question should be answered in the affirmative.
Applying the bomb blast film to the lobby windows, in and of itself, qualifies as a significant alteration (see Labor Law § 240{**14 NY3d at 753} [1]; Joblon v Solow, 91 NY2d 457, 465 [1998]). BlastGARD significantly altered the configuration or composition of the structure by changing the way the lobby windows react to explosions, impacts and the elements. The effects of this one-time security enhancement distinguish the activity from affixing an advertisement on a billboard, a more frequent change that has less structural effect (see Munoz v DJZ Realty, LLC, 5 NY3d 747 [2005]).
Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur in memorandum.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, etc.