Carlos v. W.H.P. 19 L. L. C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Carlos v. W.H.P. 19 L. L. C.

280 A.D.2d 419, 720 N.Y.S.2d 496, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1727

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

DecidedFebruary 22, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 280 A.D.2d 419 (Carlos v. W.H.P. 19 L. L. C.) 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

Carlos v. W.H.P. 19 L. L. C., 280 A.D.2d 419, 720 N.Y.S.2d 496, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1727 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard Silver, J.), entered May 30, 2000, which denied plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment as to liability upon their Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and plaintiffs’ motion granted.

Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on their Labor Law § 240 (1) claim should have been granted inasmuch as comparative negligence is not a defense to such claim (Bland v Manocherian, 66 NY2d 452, 460-461). The improper placement of the ladder on an uneven sidewalk and the failure to secure it were violations of Labor Law § 240 (1) and, therefore, plaintiff laborer’s conduct in continuing to ascend a ladder he knew had been only partially opened was not, as a matter of law, the sole proximate cause of his accident (cf., Weininger v Hagedorn & Co., 91 NY2d 958).

We also reject defendant’s argument that there is a factual issue as to whether plaintiff was engaged in work falling within the protective ambit of Labor Law § 240 (1). The argument is not properly before us, having been advanced for the first time on appeal, and, in any event, is without merit. Plaintiffs removal of a sign was an integral part of a larger ongoing project to construct a high-rise apartment building and, as such, was covered under Labor Law § 240 (1) (see, Lombardi v Stout, 80 NY2d 290). Concur — Nardelli, J. R, Williams, Andrias, Wallach and Lerner, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard Silver, J.), entered May 30, 2000, which denied plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment as to liability upon their Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and plaintiffs’ motion granted.

Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on their Labor Law § 240 (1) claim should have been granted inasmuch as comparative negligence is not a defense to such claim (Bland v Manocherian, 66 NY2d 452, 460-461). The improper placement of the ladder on an uneven sidewalk and the failure to secure it were violations of Labor Law § 240 (1) and, therefore, plaintiff laborer’s conduct in continuing to ascend a ladder he knew had been only partially opened was not, as a matter of law, the sole proximate cause of his accident (cf., Weininger v Hagedorn & Co., 91 NY2d 958).

We also reject defendant’s argument that there is a factual issue as to whether plaintiff was engaged in work falling within the protective ambit of Labor Law § 240 (1). The argument is not properly before us, having been advanced for the first time on appeal, and, in any event, is without merit. Plaintiffs removal of a sign was an integral part of a larger ongoing project to construct a high-rise apartment building and, as such, was covered under Labor Law § 240 (1) (see, Lombardi v Stout, 80 NY2d 290). Concur — Nardelli, J. R, Williams, Andrias, Wallach and Lerner, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

280 A.D.2d 419, 720 N.Y.S.2d 496, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1727, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carlos-v-whp-19-l-l-c-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack