From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McCatty v. Creations Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 29, 1999
260 A.D.2d 315 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

April 29, 1999

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth Thompson, Jr., J.).


The affidavit and deposition testimony that plaintiff submitted in support of the motion, which assert that he was injured by bricks that fell from the wall of an existing structure, or an opening therein, as he was cleaning out concrete on the ground floor, failed to establish a prima facie right to judgment as a matter of law under either Labor Law § 240 (1) ( see, Misseritti v. Mark IV Constr. Co., 86 N.Y.2d 487, 490-491; Dias v. Stahl, 256 A.D.2d 235; Amato v. State of New York, 241 A.D.2d 400, 401, lv denied 91 N.Y.2d 805), or Labor Law § 241 (6) based on a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (a) (1) ( see, Amato v. State of New York, supra, at 402). Thus, denial of the motion was required regardless of defendant's failure to submit any admissible evidence in support of its claim that plaintiff was injured when a brick wall he was attempting to knock down with a sledge hammer fell on him ( see, Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851, 853).

Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Tom, Lerner, Mazzarelli and Friedman, JJ.


Summaries of

McCatty v. Creations Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 29, 1999
260 A.D.2d 315 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

McCatty v. Creations Associates

Case Details

Full title:GLENDON McCATTY et al., Appellants, v. CREATIONS ASSOCIATES, Respondent…

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

Date published: Apr 29, 1999

Citations

260 A.D.2d 315 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
689 N.Y.S.2d 78

Citing Cases

Robles v. Merrill Lynch

To fulfill its burden of proof, a movant must proffer either affidavits by one who has knowledge of the facts…

Clemente v. 205 W. 103 Owners Corp.

The fact of a falling object striking plaintiff does not, in and of itself, establish prima facie violation…