From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Public Administrator v. Tomassetti

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 13, 2000
271 A.D.2d 515 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

Submitted February 23, 2000.

April 13, 2000.

In an action to recover damages for wrongful death, the defendants Sarafino Tomassetti and Maria Tomassetti appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Steinhardt, J.), dated August 5, 1999, which granted the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240 Lab.(1).

Rebore, Thorpe Pisarello, P.C., Farmingdale, N.Y. (Paul W. Thorpe, Jr., of counsel), for appellants.

Mirman Markovits Landau, New York, N.Y. (Jason M. Rubin of counsel), for respondent.

DANIEL W. JOY, J.P., WILLIAM C. THOMPSON, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff's decedent sustained fatal injuries when an unsecured ladder upon which he was working collapsed beneath him. The decedent's co-worker heard the crash and found the decedent and the ladder on the floor, with three broken balusters from the wooden banister against which the ladder had been leaning.

The plaintiff established prima facie that the appellants violated their statutory duty pursuant to Labor Law § 240 Lab.(1), and that the violation was a proximate cause of the injuries (see, Gordon v. Eastern Ry. Supply, 82 N.Y.2d 555 ; Zimmer v. Chemung County Performing Arts, Inc., 65 N.Y.2d 513 ; Bryan v. City of New York, 206 A.D.2d 448 ; Whalen v. Sciame Constr. Co., 198 A.D.2d 501 ). The appellants failed to submit evidence in admissible form to rebut this prima facie showing (see, Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 560 ).

Contrary to the appellants' contention, the facts surrounding this accident were not within the exclusive knowledge of the plaintiff (see, Masiello v. Belcastro, 237 A.D.2d 335 ; Bryan v. City of New York, 206 A.D.2d 448 , supra; Bras v. Atlas Constr. Corp., 166 A.D.2d 401 ;Pritchard v. Murray Walter, Inc., 157 A.D.2d 1012 ). Furthermore, the appellants' mere hope that further discovery will reveal something helpful to their case provides no basis for postponing the determination of the plaintiff's motion (see, Bryan v. City of New York, supra; Plotkin v. Franklin, 179 A.D.2d 746 ).


Summaries of

Public Administrator v. Tomassetti

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 13, 2000
271 A.D.2d 515 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Public Administrator v. Tomassetti

Case Details

Full title:PUBLIC ADMINISTRATOR OF KINGS COUNTY, ETC., respondent, v. SARAFINO…

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

Date published: Apr 13, 2000

Citations

271 A.D.2d 515 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
706 N.Y.S.2d 350

Citing Cases

Salon v. Millinery

In opposition, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether there was a statutory…

RESIDENTIAL FUNDING CORP. v. EPPS

Plaintiff has failed to submit any such evidence, either in opposition to the motion, or in support of its…