Camacho v. 101 Ellwood Tenants Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Camacho v. 101 Ellwood Tenants Corp.

289 A.D.2d 102, 735 N.Y.S.2d 77, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12135

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

DecidedDecember 13, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 289 A.D.2d 102 (Camacho v. 101 Ellwood Tenants Corp.) 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

Camacho v. 101 Ellwood Tenants Corp., 289 A.D.2d 102, 735 N.Y.S.2d 77, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12135 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Jerry Crispino, J.), entered October 31, 2000, which granted plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of defendant’s liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), and denied defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Summary judgment as to liability on the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action was properly granted. The record establishes that plaintiff was injured in an elevation-related accident that was not prevented by any safety device, and that he was engaged in plaster repair work within the ambit of that statute’s protection. “It is well settled that the failure to secure a ladder to insure that it remains stable and erect while the plaintiff was working on it constitutes a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) as a matter of law” (MacNair v Salamon, 199 AD2d 170, 171). Notwithstanding defendant’s assertions to the contrary, there is no view of the evidence by which a jury could reasonably find that the failure to secure the ladder was not the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries, given plaintiffs own uncontroverted testimony that the ladder slipped out from under him (id., at 172; compare, Weininger v Hagedorn & Co., 91 NY2d 958).

We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur — Wallach, J. P., Lerner, Rubin, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Jerry Crispino, J.), entered October 31, 2000, which granted plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of defendant’s liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), and denied defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Summary judgment as to liability on the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action was properly granted. The record establishes that plaintiff was injured in an elevation-related accident that was not prevented by any safety device, and that he was engaged in plaster repair work within the ambit of that statute’s protection. “It is well settled that the failure to secure a ladder to insure that it remains stable and erect while the plaintiff was working on it constitutes a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) as a matter of law” (MacNair v Salamon, 199 AD2d 170, 171). Notwithstanding defendant’s assertions to the contrary, there is no view of the evidence by which a jury could reasonably find that the failure to secure the ladder was not the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries, given plaintiffs own uncontroverted testimony that the ladder slipped out from under him (id., at 172; compare, Weininger v Hagedorn & Co., 91 NY2d 958).

We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur — Wallach, J. P., Lerner, Rubin, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

289 A.D.2d 102, 735 N.Y.S.2d 77, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12135, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/camacho-v-101-ellwood-tenants-corp-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack