Opinion
43 Index No. 25616/16E Case No. 2022-03871
04-18-2023
Manuel SANCHEZ, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. WALTON AVENUE REALTY ASSOCIATES LLC, Defendant–Appellant, 1405 Deli Grocery Corp., et al., Defendants.
Mauro Lilling Naparty LLP, Woodbury (Anthony F. DeStefano of counsel), for appellant. William Schwitzer & Associates, P.C., New York (Travis K. Wong of counsel), for respondent.
Mauro Lilling Naparty LLP, Woodbury (Anthony F. DeStefano of counsel), for appellant.
William Schwitzer & Associates, P.C., New York (Travis K. Wong of counsel), for respondent.
Webber, J.P., Friedman, Singh, Scarpulla, Rodriguez, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lucindo Suarez, J.), entered February 28, 2022, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on Labor Law § 240(1) liability against defendant Walton Avenue Realty Associates LLC and denied Walton Avenue Realty Associates LLC's motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 240(1) claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The motion court properly granted plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on Labor Law § 240(1) liability against Walton Realty. Walton Realty, the owner of the building, is liable for the Labor Law violation which occurred on its premises, regardless of whether it lacked knowledge or control of the work contracted for by its tenant (see Sanatass v. Consolidated Inv. Co., Inc., 10 N.Y.3d 333, 858 N.Y.S.2d 67, 887 N.E.2d 1125 [2008] ).
Plaintiff's work of installing 30 feet of pipes and electrical lines from two commercial-grade refrigeration units inside the tenant's space to compressors outside in the building's courtyard constituted an alteration of a building (see Mannes v. Kamber Mgt., Inc., 284 A.D.2d 310, 310, 726 N.Y.S.2d 440 [2d Dept. 2001], lv dismissed 97 N.Y.2d 638, 735 N.Y.S.2d 494, 760 N.E.2d 1290 [2001] ).
Plaintiff established prima facie that his injuries were proximately caused by a violation of § 240(1), as it is undisputed that the only safety devices supplied to him —two unsecured A-frame ladders — failed to afford him adequate protection to perform the installation of the refrigeration units while at an elevation (see Martinez v. St–Dil LLC, 192 A.D.3d 511, 512, 144 N.Y.S.3d 687 [1st Dept. 2021] ). In opposition, Walton Realty failed to raise an issue of fact whether plaintiff's conduct was the sole proximate cause of his injuries. As plaintiff was not provided with an adequate safety device, Walton Realty cannot avail itself of the sole proximate cause defense (see DeRose v. Bloomingdale's Inc., 120 A.D.3d 41, 46, 986 N.Y.S.2d 127 [1st Dept. 2014] ).
We have considered Walton Avenue's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.