Christiano v. Random House, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Christiano v. Random House, Inc.

51 A.D.3d 579, 858 N.Y.S.2d 168

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

DecidedMay 29, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 51 A.D.3d 579 (Christiano v. Random House, Inc.) 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

Christiano v. Random House, Inc., 51 A.D.3d 579, 858 N.Y.S.2d 168 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Sallie ManzanetDaniels, J.), entered August 1, 2007, which denied plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment and third-party defendant Plaza Construction’s cross motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The evidence, as exemplified by the plaintiff worker’s own deposition testimony, does not establish that the accident occurred when he was standing on the floor of a soffit interior that collapsed beneath him. To the contrary, it appears that he was standing on the steel beam within the soffit’s interior, which did not shift, break or collapse when he fell (compare Gomez v 2355 Eighth Ave., LLC, 45 AD3d 493 [2007]; Becerra v City of New York, 261 AD2d 188 [1999]). Issues of material fact exist as to whether this plaintiff was a recalcitrant worker or the sole proximate cause of the accident, including whether immediately prior to the accident he had on his person adequate safety devices provided by defendants that he unilaterally decided to discard in the interest of completing his assigned tasks more quickly (see Cahill v Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth., 4 NY3d 35 [2004]; Gonzalez v Rodless Props., L.P., 37 AD3d 180 [2007]). Accordingly, summary resolution of the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim is unwarranted. Concur—Lippman, P.J., Tom, Gonzalez, Buckley and Renwick, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Sallie ManzanetDaniels, J.), entered August 1, 2007, which denied plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment and third-party defendant Plaza Construction’s cross motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The evidence, as exemplified by the plaintiff worker’s own deposition testimony, does not establish that the accident occurred when he was standing on the floor of a soffit interior that collapsed beneath him. To the contrary, it appears that he was standing on the steel beam within the soffit’s interior, which did not shift, break or collapse when he fell (compare Gomez v 2355 Eighth Ave., LLC, 45 AD3d 493 [2007]; Becerra v City of New York, 261 AD2d 188 [1999]). Issues of material fact exist as to whether this plaintiff was a recalcitrant worker or the sole proximate cause of the accident, including whether immediately prior to the accident he had on his person adequate safety devices provided by defendants that he unilaterally decided to discard in the interest of completing his assigned tasks more quickly (see Cahill v Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth., 4 NY3d 35 [2004]; Gonzalez v Rodless Props., L.P., 37 AD3d 180 [2007]). Accordingly, summary resolution of the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim is unwarranted. Concur—Lippman, P.J., Tom, Gonzalez, Buckley and Renwick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 A.D.3d 579, 858 N.Y.S.2d 168, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/christiano-v-random-house-inc-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack