Opinion
2013-02-20
Pedro CORCHADO, appellant, v. 5030 BROADWAY PROPERTIES, LLC, et al., defendants third–party plaintiffs–respondents, Edison Construction Management, LLC, defendant–respondent. V. Barile, third–party defendant–respondent.
Hecht Kleeger Pintel & Damashek, New York, N.Y. (Ephrem J. Wertenteil of counsel), for appellant. Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Thomas W. Hyuland, Anastasios P. Tonorezos, and Jeffrey J. Cunningham of counsel), for defendants third–party plaintiffs–respondents.
Hecht Kleeger Pintel & Damashek, New York, N.Y. (Ephrem J. Wertenteil of counsel), for appellant. Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Thomas W. Hyuland, Anastasios P. Tonorezos, and Jeffrey J. Cunningham of counsel), for defendants third–party plaintiffs–respondents.
Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry, LLP, Hawthorne, N.Y. (Sheryl A. Sanford of counsel), for third–party defendant–respondent.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., L. PRISCILLA HALL, SHERI S. ROMAN, and ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Fusco, J.), dated March 15, 2012, which denied his motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240(1).
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
The plaintiff allegedly sustained personal injuries when he fell from an A-frame ladder while working on the installation of a sprinkler system during the renovation of a building. The plaintiff subsequently commenced the instant action to recover damages for personal injuries, alleging, inter alia, a violation of Labor Law § 240(1). The plaintiff then moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability on that cause of action, and the Supreme Court denied the plaintiff's motion.
“Labor Law § 240(1) imposes upon owners and general contractors, and their agents, a nondelegable duty to provide safety devices necessary to protect workers from risks inherent in elevated work sites” ( McCarthy v. Turner Constr., Inc., 17 N.Y.3d 369, 374, 929 N.Y.S.2d 556, 953 N.E.2d 794;see Norero v. 99–105 Third Ave. Realty, LLC, 96 A.D.3d 727, 727–728, 945 N.Y.S.2d 720). “ ‘To impose liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240(1), there must be a violation of the statute and that violation must be a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries' ” ( Nunez v. City of New York, 100 A.D.3d 724, 724, 954 N.Y.S.2d 163, quoting Tama v. Gargiulo Bros., Inc., 61 A.D.3d 958, 960, 878 N.Y.S.2d 128;see Blake v. Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of N.Y. City, 1 N.Y.3d 280, 287, 771 N.Y.S.2d 484, 803 N.E.2d 757). “[W]here a plaintiff's own actions are the sole proximate cause of the accident, there can be no liability” ( Cahill v. Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth., 4 N.Y.3d 35, 39, 790 N.Y.S.2d 74, 823 N.E.2d 439;see Blake v. Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of N.Y. City, 1 N.Y.3d at 290, 771 N.Y.S.2d 484, 803 N.E.2d 757).
Here, the plaintiff established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability on the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240(1) by submitting evidence which demonstrated that he fell from the ladder when it “kicked out” from underneath him, and that the failure to provide him with an adequate safety device proximately caused his injuries ( see Gordon v. Eastern Ry. Supply, 82 N.Y.2d 555, 561–562, 606 N.Y.S.2d 127, 626 N.E.2d 912;Robinson v. Goldman Sachs Headquarters, LLC, 95 A.D.3d 1096, 1097, 944 N.Y.S.2d 630;Reaber v. Connequot Cent. School Dist. No. 7, 57 A.D.3d 640, 641, 870 N.Y.S.2d 72;Gilhooly v. Dormitory Auth. of State of New York, 51 A.D.3d 719, 720, 858 N.Y.S.2d 308). In opposition, however, the defendants raised a triable issue of fact as to the manner in which the accident occurred ( see Kamolov v. BIA Group, LLC, 79 A.D.3d 1101, 915 N.Y.S.2d 588), and whether the plaintiff's own actions were the sole proximate cause of the accident ( see Allan v. DHL Express [ USA ], Inc., 99 A.D.3d 828, 833, 952 N.Y.S.2d 275;Robinson v. Goldman Sachs Headquarters, LLC, 95 A.D.3d at 1097–1098, 944 N.Y.S.2d 630). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240(1).