Dasilva v. A.J. Contracting Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dasilva v. A.J. Contracting Co.

262 A.D.2d 214, 694 N.Y.S.2d 353, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7404

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

DecidedJune 22, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 262 A.D.2d 214 (Dasilva v. A.J. Contracting Co.) 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

Dasilva v. A.J. Contracting Co., 262 A.D.2d 214, 694 N.Y.S.2d 353, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7404 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Huff, J.), entered on or about November 23, 1998, which granted plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment as to liability upon their claim pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

It is uncontradicted that plaintiff, while performing demolition work, was injured when the unsecured A-Frame ladder he was standing on was struck by a section of pipe he had cut, causing him to fall. Plaintiff had not been provided with safety devices, nor was anyone holding the ladder. The failure to properly secure a ladder so as to hold it steady and erect during its use constitutes a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) (Kijak v 330 Madison Ave. Corp., 251 AD2d 152). Here, the absence of adequate safety devices was a substantial and, given the nature of the work being performed, foreseeable cause of plaintiff’s fall and injury (see, LaFleur v Consolidated Edison Co., 221 AD2d 250). The striking of the ladder by a pipe cut [215]*215during the ongoing demolition was not such an extraordinary event as to constitute a superceding cause and, accordingly, it cannot be said that plaintiffs actions in cutting the pipe were the sole proximate cause of his injuries (see, Wasilewski v Museum of Modern Art, 260 AD2d 271.) Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Williams, Tom, Wallach and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Huff, J.), entered on or about November 23, 1998, which granted plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment as to liability upon their claim pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

It is uncontradicted that plaintiff, while performing demolition work, was injured when the unsecured A-Frame ladder he was standing on was struck by a section of pipe he had cut, causing him to fall. Plaintiff had not been provided with safety devices, nor was anyone holding the ladder. The failure to properly secure a ladder so as to hold it steady and erect during its use constitutes a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) (Kijak v 330 Madison Ave. Corp., 251 AD2d 152). Here, the absence of adequate safety devices was a substantial and, given the nature of the work being performed, foreseeable cause of plaintiff’s fall and injury (see, LaFleur v Consolidated Edison Co., 221 AD2d 250). The striking of the ladder by a pipe cut [215]*215during the ongoing demolition was not such an extraordinary event as to constitute a superceding cause and, accordingly, it cannot be said that plaintiffs actions in cutting the pipe were the sole proximate cause of his injuries (see, Wasilewski v Museum of Modern Art, 260 AD2d 271.) Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Williams, Tom, Wallach and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D.2d 214, 694 N.Y.S.2d 353, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7404, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dasilva-v-aj-contracting-co-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack