Opinion
06-04-2024
Emilio CUOMO, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. The PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK & NEW JERSEY et al., Defendants–Appellants.
Manning Gross + Massenburg LLP, New York (Ryan Sweeney of counsel), for appellants. Arye, Lustig & Sassower, P.C., New York (Mitchell J. Sassower of counsel), for respondent.
Manning Gross + Massenburg LLP, New York (Ryan Sweeney of counsel), for appellants.
Arye, Lustig & Sassower, P.C., New York (Mitchell J. Sassower of counsel), for respondent.
Singh, J.P., Kennedy, Mendez, Rodriguez, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sabrina Kraus, J.), entered October 13, 2022, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff established entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim by showing that the unsecured temporary staircase he was using at the time of his accident was inadequate to protect him from a gravity-related risk (see McGarry v. CVP 1 LLC, 55 A.D.3d 441, 441, 866 N.Y.S.2d 76 [1st Dept. 2008]). Defendants’ safety inspectors conceded that the staircase failed to provide safe access from a wooden platform to the concrete floor. Moreover, plaintiff was not required to demonstrate that the staircase was defective (see Williams v. 520 Madison Partnership, 38 A.D.3d 464, 465, 834 N.Y.S.2d 32 [1st Dept. 2007]).
Defendants failed to raise an issue of fact by submitting, among other things, accident reports that did not state that the staircase moved (see e.g. Hill v. City of New York, 140 A.D.3d 568, 570, 35 N.Y.S.3d 307 [1st Dept. 2016]). Any alleged misuse of the temporary staircase by plaintiff was at most comparative negligence, which is not a defense to a Labor Law § 240(1) claim (see Bialucha v. City of Naw York, 222 A.D.3d 511, 512, 199 N.Y.S.3d 507 [1st Dept. 2023]).