From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lajqi v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 1, 2005
23 A.D.3d 159 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)

Opinion

6950.

November 1, 2005.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mary Ann Briganti-Hughes, J.), entered February 3, 2005, which granted plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1), unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Fiedelman McGaw, Jericho (Andrew Zajac of counsel), for appellants.

Kelner and Kelner, New York (Gail S. Kelner of counsel), for respondents.

Before: Buckley, P.J., Tom, Mazzarelli, Marlow and Catterson, JJ., Concur.


Labor Law § 240 (1) imposes a nondelegable duty upon the owner and contractor to provide proper and adequate safety devices to protect workers at an elevation from falling ( Vergara v. SS 133 W. 21, LLC, 21 AD3d 279, 280). Plaintiffs demonstrated that Shpend Lajqi was not provided with any protection for the work he was performing at the construction site, and defendants' failure to provide proper safety devices was a proximate cause of the fall. Even if plaintiff's medical condition may have caused him to faint or become dizzy, it was not the sole proximate cause of the accident such as would absolve defendants ( Samuel v. Simone Dev. Co., 13 AD3d 112; cf. Munford v. Pressmad Corp., 277 AD2d 135).


Summaries of

Lajqi v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 1, 2005
23 A.D.3d 159 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
Case details for

Lajqi v. New York City Transit Authority

Case Details

Full title:SHPEND LAJQI et al., Respondents, v. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY et…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Nov 1, 2005

Citations

23 A.D.3d 159 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
2005 N.Y. Slip Op. 8029
805 N.Y.S.2d 5

Citing Cases

Schwarz v. Valente

The jury determined, in its answer to Question No.3 of the verdict sheet, that defendants violated Labor Law…

Rios-Rodriguez v. City of N.Y.

However, an "intervening act may not serve as a superseding cause, and relieve an actor of responsibility,…