Opinion
2017–03828 Index No. 502334/12
07-31-2019
Hector LUNA, Appellant, et al., Plaintiff, v. 4300 CRESCENT, LLC, et al., Respondents.
Lurie, Ilchert, MacDonnell & Ryan, LLP (Profeta & Eisenstein, New York, N.Y. [Fred R. Profeta, Jr. ], of counsel), for appellant. Kowalski & DeVito (McGaw, Alventosa & Zajac, Jericho, N.Y. [Andrew Zajac ], of counsel), for respondents.
Lurie, Ilchert, MacDonnell & Ryan, LLP (Profeta & Eisenstein, New York, N.Y. [Fred R. Profeta, Jr. ], of counsel), for appellant.
Kowalski & DeVito (McGaw, Alventosa & Zajac, Jericho, N.Y. [Andrew Zajac ], of counsel), for respondents.
JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, J.P., SHERI S. ROMAN, HECTOR D. LASALLE, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiff Hector Luna appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Arthur M. Schack, J.), entered April 13, 2017. The judgment, insofar as appealed from, upon a jury verdict in favor of the defendants on the issue of liability on the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240(1), and upon an order of the same court (Johnny Lee Baynes, J.) dated November 21, 2016, denying the plaintiffs' motion pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) to set aside the verdict and for judgment as a matter of law or, in the alternative, to set aside the verdict as contrary to the weight of the evidence and for a new trial, is in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiff Hector Luna, in effect, dismissing the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240(1).
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The plaintiff Hector Luna (hereinafter the injured plaintiff) was injured while attempting to move a mortar buggy down a ramp during the construction of a new building. The injured plaintiff, and his wife suing derivatively, commenced this action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, alleging, among other things, a violation of Labor Law § 240(1). A jury trial was held on the issue of liability on the Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action, and the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants. Thereafter, the plaintiffs moved to set aside the jury's verdict and for judgment as a matter of law or, in the alternative, to set aside the verdict as contrary to the weight of the evidence and for a new trial. The Supreme Court denied the motion, and a judgment was entered in favor of the defendants and against the injured plaintiff, in effect, inter alia, dismissing the Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action. The injured plaintiff appeals, contending that the jury's verdict was not supported by legally sufficient evidence or, in the alternative, was contrary to the weight of the evidence.
For a court to conclude as a matter of law that a jury verdict is not supported by legally sufficient evidence, "it is necessary to first conclude that there is simply no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could possibly lead rational [persons] to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence presented at trial" ( Cohen v. Hallmark Cards, 45 N.Y.2d 493, 499, 410 N.Y.S.2d 282, 382 N.E.2d 1145 ; see Killon v. Parrotta, 28 N.Y.3d 101, 108, 42 N.Y.S.3d 70, 65 N.E.3d 41 ; Kirkland v. Ranchers Best Wholesale Meats, Inc., 152 A.D.3d 656, 60 N.Y.S.3d 189 ). The determination that a verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence "is itself a factual determination based on the reviewing court's conclusion that the original trier of fact has incorrectly assessed the evidence" ( Cohen v. Hallmark Cards, 45 N.Y.2d at 498, 410 N.Y.S.2d 282, 382 N.E.2d 1145 ). A jury verdict should not be set aside as contrary to the weight of the evidence unless it "could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence" ( Lolik v. Big V Supermarkets, 86 N.Y.2d 744, 746, 631 N.Y.S.2d 122, 655 N.E.2d 163 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Killon v. Parrotta, 28 N.Y.3d at 107, 42 N.Y.S.3d 70, 65 N.E.3d 41 ; Kirkland v. Ranchers Best Wholesale Meats, Inc., 152 A.D.3d at 657, 60 N.Y.S.3d 189 ; Wilson v. County of Westchester, 148 A.D.3d 1091, 1091, 50 N.Y.S.3d 416 ).
Labor Law § 240(1) provides: "All contractors ... in the erection, demolition, repairing, altering, painting, cleaning or pointing of a building or structure shall furnish or erect, or cause to be furnished or erected for the performance of such labor, 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 a person so employed." The purpose of the statute is to "protect construction workers not from routine workplace risks, but from the pronounced risks arising from construction work site elevation differentials" ( Runner v. New York Stock Exch., Inc., 13 N.Y.3d 599, 603, 895 N.Y.S.2d 279, 922 N.E.2d 865 ; see Simmons v. City of New York, 165 A.D.3d 725, 726, 85 N.Y.S.3d 462 ). Thus, liability under Labor Law § 240(1) may be imposed only where the harm "flows directly from the application of the force of gravity" ( Runner v. New York Stock Exch., Inc., 13 N.Y.3d at 604, 895 N.Y.S.2d 279, 922 N.E.2d 865 ).
Where an accident is caused by a violation of Labor Law § 240(1), the plaintiff's own negligence does not furnish a defense; however, there can be no liability under Labor Law § 240(1) where the plaintiff's own actions are the sole proximate cause of the accident (see Barreto v. Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 25 N.Y.3d 426, 433, 13 N.Y.S.3d 305, 34 N.E.3d 815 ; Cahill v. Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth., 4 N.Y.3d 35, 39, 790 N.Y.S.2d 74, 823 N.E.2d 439 ; Blake v. Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of N.Y. City, 1 N.Y.3d 280, 290, 771 N.Y.S.2d 484, 803 N.E.2d 757 ). In order to recover damages for a violation of Labor Law § 240(1), a plaintiff must establish that the statute was violated and that such violation was a proximate cause of the injury (see Barreto v. Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 25 N.Y.3d at 433, 13 N.Y.S.3d 305, 34 N.E.3d 815 ; Cahill v. Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth., 4 N.Y.3d at 39, 790 N.Y.S.2d 74, 823 N.E.2d 439 ; Blake v. Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of N.Y. City, 1 N.Y.3d at 287, 771 N.Y.S.2d 484, 803 N.E.2d 757 ).
Here, there was a valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could have led a rational jury to conclude that the injured plaintiff's own conduct in attempting to move the mortar buggy without assistance, rather than any violation of Labor Law § 240(1), was the sole proximate cause of his alleged injuries (see Cohen v. Hallmark Cards, 45 N.Y.2d at 499, 410 N.Y.S.2d 282, 382 N.E.2d 1145 ; see also Valente v. Lend Lease [US] Constr. LMB., Inc., 29 N.Y.3d 1104, 1105, 60 N.Y.S.3d 107, 82 N.E.3d 448 ; Robinson v. East Med. Ctr., LP, 6 N.Y.3d 550, 555, 814 N.Y.S.2d 589, 847 N.E.2d 1162 ; Cahill v. Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth., 4 N.Y.3d at 40, 790 N.Y.S.2d 74, 823 N.E.2d 439 ; Brown v. Concord Nurseries, Inc., 53 A.D.3d 1067, 1068, 863 N.Y.S.2d 314 ). Moreover, as it cannot be said that the jury's verdict could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence, the verdict was not contrary to the weight of the evidence (see Lolik v. Big V Supermarkets, 86 N.Y.2d at 746, 631 N.Y.S.2d 122, 655 N.E.2d 163 ; Kirkland v. Ranchers Best Wholesale Meats, Inc., 152 A.D.3d at 657, 60 N.Y.S.3d 189 ; Wilson v. County of Westchester, 148 A.D.3d at 1091, 50 N.Y.S.3d 416 ).
LEVENTHAL, J.P., ROMAN, LASALLE and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.