Anderson v. International House

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Anderson v. International House

222 A.D.2d 237, 635 N.Y.S.2d 13, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12722

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

DecidedDecember 7, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 222 A.D.2d 237 (Anderson v. International House) 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

Anderson v. International House, 222 A.D.2d 237, 635 N.Y.S.2d 13, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12722 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered June 8, 1995, which denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1), is unanimously reversed, on the law, and the motion granted, without costs or disbursements.

Plaintiff was injured when he fell from a scaffold which did not have any safety railings around its perimeter, a work platform or any toe boards. He also had not been provided with any safety belt, lifeline, hard hat or any other safety device.

Pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1), absolute liability ensues from this undisputed failure of defendant to provide appropriate safety devices, and, under the circumstances herein, the absence of such equipment was a proximate cause of the accident (see, Bland v Manocherian, 66 NY2d 452, 461). Contrary to defendant’s contention, there is no necessity that plaintiff’s testimony or sworn statement be corroborated. There is no bar to granting partial summary judgment as to liability, on plaintiff’s statement alone, since no bona fide issue as to his credibility exists (Rodriguez v New York City Hous. Auth., 194 AD2d 460, 461-462). "[Mjinor, immaterial inconsistencies” in the testimony or statement will also not preclude the grant of summary judgment (Robinson v NAB Constr. Corp., 210 AD2d 86, 87). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Rubin, Kupferman, Asch and Williams, JJ.

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

—Order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered June 8, 1995, which denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1), is unanimously reversed, on the law, and the motion granted, without costs or disbursements.

Plaintiff was injured when he fell from a scaffold which did not have any safety railings around its perimeter, a work platform or any toe boards. He also had not been provided with any safety belt, lifeline, hard hat or any other safety device.

Pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1), absolute liability ensues from this undisputed failure of defendant to provide appropriate safety devices, and, under the circumstances herein, the absence of such equipment was a proximate cause of the accident (see, Bland v Manocherian, 66 NY2d 452, 461). Contrary to defendant’s contention, there is no necessity that plaintiff’s testimony or sworn statement be corroborated. There is no bar to granting partial summary judgment as to liability, on plaintiff’s statement alone, since no bona fide issue as to his credibility exists (Rodriguez v New York City Hous. Auth., 194 AD2d 460, 461-462). "[Mjinor, immaterial inconsistencies” in the testimony or statement will also not preclude the grant of summary judgment (Robinson v NAB Constr. Corp., 210 AD2d 86, 87). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Rubin, Kupferman, Asch and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

222 A.D.2d 237, 635 N.Y.S.2d 13, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12722, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anderson-v-international-house-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack