Almodovar v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Almodovar v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J.

138 A.D.3d 571, 28 N.Y.S.3d 600

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 21, 2016

Docket883 100631/12

StatusPublished

This text of 138 A.D.3d 571 (Almodovar v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Almodovar v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 138 A.D.3d 571, 28 N.Y.S.3d 600 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol R. Edmead, J.), entered July 28, 2014, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, and denied plaintiff’s cross motion for partial summary judgment on that claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff, a sheet metal apprentice performing duct work, was injured when, while descending a ladder, his pant leg became caught on an unmarked rebar protruding from the concrete floor, causing him to step down from the third rung of the ladder, lose his balance, and fall to the ground. Under these circumstances, dismissal of the Labor Law § 240 claim was proper, as there is no dispute that the ladder was free from defects, and the record shows that plaintiff’s fall was not attributable to the kind of extraordinary elevation-related risk that the statute was designed to prevent. Rather, plaintiff’s injuries “were the result of the usual and ordinary dangers at a construction site” (Nieves v Five Boro A.C. & Refrig. Corp., 93 NY2d 914, 916 [1999]; see Nicometi v Vineyards of Fredonia, LLC, 25 NY3d 90, 99 [2015]; Cohen v Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Ctr., 11 NY3d 823 [2008]).

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Renwick, Saxe, Gische and Kahn, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol R. Edmead, J.), entered July 28, 2014, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, and denied plaintiff’s cross motion for partial summary judgment on that claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff, a sheet metal apprentice performing duct work, was injured when, while descending a ladder, his pant leg became caught on an unmarked rebar protruding from the concrete floor, causing him to step down from the third rung of the ladder, lose his balance, and fall to the ground. Under these circumstances, dismissal of the Labor Law § 240 claim was proper, as there is no dispute that the ladder was free from defects, and the record shows that plaintiff’s fall was not attributable to the kind of extraordinary elevation-related risk that the statute was designed to prevent. Rather, plaintiff’s injuries “were the result of the usual and ordinary dangers at a construction site” (Nieves v Five Boro A.C. & Refrig. Corp., 93 NY2d 914, 916 [1999]; see Nicometi v Vineyards of Fredonia, LLC, 25 NY3d 90, 99 [2015]; Cohen v Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Ctr., 11 NY3d 823 [2008]).

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Renwick, Saxe, Gische and Kahn, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 A.D.3d 571, 28 N.Y.S.3d 600, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/almodovar-v-port-auth-of-ny-nj-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack