Felix v. Independence Savings Bank

89 A.D.3d 895, 932 N.Y.2d 719

Opinion

The plaintiff allegedly was injured when he fell from a scaffold, which was on wheels, while performing pipefitting work. He established, prima facie, that the defendants were subject to liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) based on his deposition testimony that a wheel of the scaffold on which he was working slipped into a hole, causing him to fall (see Caballero v Benjamin Beechwood, LLC, 67 AD3d 849, 852 [2009]).

[896]*896In opposition, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact (cf. Wiener v Rosmarin, 282 AD2d 449, 450 [2001]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the cause of action alleging violations of Labor Law § 240 (1). Angiolillo, J.E, Leventhal, Austin and Roman, JJ., concur.

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

Felix v. Independence Savings Bank, 89 A.D.3d 895, 932 N.Y.2d 719 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

89 A.D.3d 895 (Felix v. Independence Savings Bank) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Caballero v. BenJamin Beechwood, LLC
67 A.D.3d 849 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Wiener v. Rosmarin
282 A.D.2d 449 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)