Farmer v. City of Niagara Falls

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Farmer v. City of Niagara Falls

249 A.D.2d 922, 672 N.Y.S.2d 173, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5005

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 29, 1998·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

—Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion denied, cross motion granted and Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action dismissed. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in granting plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) and in denying defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing that cause of action. The evidence establishes that plaintiff was injured while attempting to climb over a two- to four-foot-high interior concrete wall situated on the second-floor deck of a building under construction. Plaintiff had just cut a piece of lumber and was walking to the other side of the

[923] deck to join his co-worker. Plaintiff testified that, as he stepped over the top of the wall, his right pant leg snagged on a protruding rebar, causing him to lose his balance and fall three or four-feet. Plaintiff injured his ankle when his left foot landed on some scrap lumber.

Plaintiff did not fall from an elevated worksite (see, Gaul v Motorola, Inc., 216 AD2d 879, 880). In climbing over the wall, plaintiff was faced with “the usual and ordinary dangers of a construction site, and not the extraordinary elevation risks envisioned by Labor Law § 240 (1)” (Rodriguez v Tietz Ctr. for Nursing Care, 84 NY2d 841, 843; see, Misseritti v Mark IV Constr. Co., 86 NY2d 487, 489, rearg denied 87 NY2d 969). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Koshian, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Denman, P. J., Law-ton, Pigott, Jr., Balio and Boehm, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion denied, cross motion granted and Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action dismissed. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in granting plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) and in denying defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing that cause of action. The evidence establishes that plaintiff was injured while attempting to climb over a two- to four-foot-high interior concrete wall situated on the second-floor deck of a building under construction. Plaintiff had just cut a piece of lumber and was walking to the other side of the

[923] deck to join his co-worker. Plaintiff testified that, as he stepped over the top of the wall, his right pant leg snagged on a protruding rebar, causing him to lose his balance and fall three or four-feet. Plaintiff injured his ankle when his left foot landed on some scrap lumber.

Plaintiff did not fall from an elevated worksite (see, Gaul v Motorola, Inc., 216 AD2d 879, 880). In climbing over the wall, plaintiff was faced with “the usual and ordinary dangers of a construction site, and not the extraordinary elevation risks envisioned by Labor Law § 240 (1)” (Rodriguez v Tietz Ctr. for Nursing Care, 84 NY2d 841, 843; see, Misseritti v Mark IV Constr. Co., 86 NY2d 487, 489, rearg denied 87 NY2d 969). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Koshian, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Denman, P. J., Law-ton, Pigott, Jr., Balio and Boehm, JJ.

Farmer v. City of Niagara Falls, 249 A.D.2d 922, 672 N.Y.S.2d 173, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5005 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

249 A.D.2d 922 (Farmer v. City of Niagara Falls) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related