Opinion
7785 Index 306692/12
12-04-2018
Santos UVIDIA, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. The CARDINAL SPELLMAN HIGH SCHOOL, et al., Defendants–Appellants.
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, New York (Nicholas P. Hurzeler of counsel), for appellants. Siegel & Coonerty, LLP, New York (Steven Aripotch of counsel), for respondent.
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, New York (Nicholas P. Hurzeler of counsel), for appellants.
Siegel & Coonerty, LLP, New York (Steven Aripotch of counsel), for respondent.
Sweeny, J.P., Manzanet–Daniels, Gische, Tom, Moulton, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Fernando Tapia, J.), entered on or about November 21, 2017, which, upon renewal of plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim, granted plaintiff's motion, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff was injured by the collapse of a plywood structure, which he and a coworker were in the middle of erecting on top of a building's roof in preparation for asbestos abatement to be performed inside the structure. Plaintiff made a prima facie showing that the collapse was proximately caused by a violation of Labor Law § 240(1), since the bracing of the structure was inadequate to prevent its collapse (see Greaves v. Obayashi Corp., 55 A.D.3d 409, 866 N.Y.S.2d 47 [1st Dept. 2008], lv dismissed 12 N.Y.3d 794, 879 N.Y.S.2d 39, 906 N.E.2d 1073 [2009] ).
There is no issue of fact about whether a gust of wind was the sole proximate cause of the accident. Labor Law § 240(1) required the provision of devices to protect against the foreseeable risk that windy weather on the roof of the building could cause the structure to shift or collapse while it was under construction (see Williams v. 520 Madison Partnership, 38 A.D.3d 464, 466, 834 N.Y.S.2d 32 [1st Dept. 2007] ).