Carchipulla v. 6661 Broadway Partners, LLC

95 A.D.3d 573, 945 N.Y.S.2d 4
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 10, 2012
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 95 A.D.3d 573 (Carchipulla v. 6661 Broadway Partners, LLC) 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
Carchipulla v. 6661 Broadway Partners, LLC, 95 A.D.3d 573, 945 N.Y.S.2d 4 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kibbie F. Payne, J.), entered October 20, 2011, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and granted plaintiffs cross motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff established his prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by showing that defendant’s failure to provide an adequate safety device enumerated in Labor Law § 240 (1) proximately caused him to fall off a ladder, injuring him (see Orellano v 29 E. 37th St. Realty Corp., 292 AD2d 289 [2002]). Plaintiff was not required to present evidence of a specific structural defect in the ladder (see Lipari v AT Spring, LLC, 92 AD3d 502, 503-504 [2012]; Orellano, 292 AD2d at 290-291). Contrary to defendant’s unpreserved contention, there is no tri[574]*574able issue of fact about whether plaintiffs negligence was the sole proximate cause of the accident, given that there is no evidence that he fell because he simply lost his footing (see Ervin v Consolidated Edison of N.Y., 93 AD3d 485 [2012]; Lipari, 92 AD3d at 504). Rather, plaintiffs uncontradicted testimony was that the ladder shook and fell while plaintiff was standing on it.

Defendant failed to preserve its arguments that the court should have dismissed plaintiffs common law negligence and Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) claims. In any event, defendant’s contentions regarding those claims are academic in light of the grant of plaintiffs cross motion for partial summary judgment on liability (see Henningham v Highbridge Community Hous. Dev. Fund Corp., 91 AD3d 521, 522 [2012]; Auriemma v Biltmore Theatre, LLC, 82 AD3d 1, 12 [2011]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Andrias, Catterson, Acosta and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Motion for a stay of trial pending appeal denied.

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

Related

Jackson v. 501 Madison-Sutton LLC
2025 NY Slip Op 31668(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2025)
Riera v. New York City Hous. Auth.
2024 NY Slip Op 34664(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2025)
Valladares v. Henry V. Murray Senior, LLC
2024 NY Slip Op 30926(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2024)
Soriano v. St. Mary's Indian Orthodox Church of Rockland, Inc.
118 A.D.3d 524 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Kuras v. Cornell University
118 A.D.3d 488 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Guzman v. 170 West End Avenue Associates
115 A.D.3d 462 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Fanning v. Rockefeller University
106 A.D.3d 484 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Ross v. 1510 Associates LLC
106 A.D.3d 471 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Lizama v. 1801 University Associates, LLC
100 A.D.3d 497 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
95 A.D.3d 573, 945 N.Y.S.2d 4, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carchipulla-v-6661-broadway-partners-llc-nyappdiv-2012.