Thus, " mere fall from a ladder or other similar safety device that did not slip, collapse or otherwise fail is insufficient to establish that the ladder did not provide appropriate protection to the worker.'" McGill v Qudsi, 91 AD3d 1241, 1243 (3rd Dept. See Cahill v Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth., 4 NY3d 35 (2004).
To prevail on a Labor Law section § 240(1) claim, a plaintiff must thus show that the statute was violated, and that this violation was a proximate cause of his or her injuries. "Rather, liability is contingent upon the existence of a hazard contemplated in section 240(1) and the failure to use, or the inadequacy of, a safety device of the kind enumerated therein." Narducci v Manhasset Bay Assoc., 96 NY2d 259, 267 (2001). However, not every worker who falls at a construction site is afforded the protections of Labor Law§ 240 (1 ). Moreover, "where an accident is caused by violation of the statute, the plaintiff's own negligence does not furnish a defense." Cahill v Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority, supra at 39. " The duty created by Labor Law§ 240(1) is nondelegable, and an owner or contractor who breaches that duty may be held liable for damages "regardless of whether it has actually exercised supervision or control over the work." Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Electric Co., 81 NY2d 494, 500 (1993) see Cahill v Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority, 4 NY3d 35 (2004). scaffolding, hoists, stays, ladders, slings, hangers, blocks, pulleys, braces, irons, ropes, and other devices which shall be so constructed, placed and operated as to give proper protection to. shall furnish or erect, or cause to be furnished or erected. Labor Law§ 240(1) provides that "ll contractors and owners and their agents. 004 1 of 4 of4 NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12:48 PM NYSCEF DOC. It should not be granted if there is any doubt about the issue."' Bronx-Lebanon Hosp. This is because '"summary judgment is a drastic remedy, the procedural equivalent of a trial. See Winegrad v New York University Medical Center, supra O'Halloran v City of New York, supra Giaquinto v Town of Hempstead, 106 AD3d 1049 (2nd Dept. 68 NY2d 320 Zuckerman v City of New York, supra O'Halloran v City of New York, 78 AD3d 536 ), the motion must be denied regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers. If the movant fails to meet this burden and establish its claim or defense sufficiently to warrant a court's directing judgment in its favor as a matter of law (see Alvarez v. See CPLR 3212(b) Jacobsen v New York City Health & Hosps. On a motion for summary judgment, the moving party must make a prima facie showing of its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to establish the absence of any material, triable issues of fact.
The defendant, owner of the subject property at 305 West 28th Street in Manhattan, opposes the motion. X The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 004) 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48,49,50, 51, 52, 53, 54,55, 56, 58, 59,61,63,64,65,66, 67,68,69, 70, 71, 72, 73 were read on this motion to/for PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT In this personal injury action arising from a fall from a ladder at construction site, the plaintiff moves for partial summary judgment on the cause of action of the complaint alleging a violation of New York State Labor Law§ 240(1 ). 004 -v- DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION MUTUAL REDEVELOPMENT HOUSES, INC., Defendant. MOTION DATE Plaintiff, 156193/2015 MOTION SEQ. BANNON Justice -X JOHN GILPIN IAS MOTION 42EFM INDEX NO. 156193/2015 RECEIVED NYSCEF: SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: PART HON. NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12:48 PM NYSCEF DOC. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. Bannon Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. 2019 NY Slip Op 33664(U) DecemSupreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 156193/2015 Judge: Nancy M. Gilpin v Mutual Redevelopment Houses, Inc.
0 kommentar(er)
