Gonzalez v. 1251 Americas Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gonzalez v. 1251 Americas Associates

262 A.D.2d 210, 693 N.Y.S.2d 107, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7499

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

DecidedJune 22, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 262 A.D.2d 210 (Gonzalez v. 1251 Americas Associates) 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

Gonzalez v. 1251 Americas Associates, 262 A.D.2d 210, 693 N.Y.S.2d 107, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7499 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered July 2, 1998, which, insofar as appealed from, granted plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), and order, same court and Justice, entered on or about October 12, 1998, which, insofar as appealable, denied defendant’s motion to renew, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant’s liability under section 240 (1) was established as a matter of law by the uncontradicted evidence that plaintiff was injured when he fell from a moving scaffold that, while less than 20 feet high, lacked guardrails or other protective devices despite a foreseeable accumulation of water on its [211]*211platform caused by the continuous spraying that was a necessary part of the asbestos removal work plaintiff was performing (see, Garcia v 1122 E. 180th St. Corp., 250 AD2d 550, 551, citing Casabianca v Port Auth., 237 AD2d 112; Bland v Manocherian, 66 NY2d 452, 461). While plaintiff was not the sole witness to the accident, even if he were, “[t]he failure of any party to adduce a statement from plaintiff’s co-workers is no reason for denying plaintiff summary judgment, absent a showing, other than mere speculation, that a bona fide issue exists as to plaintiff’s credibility” (Urrea v Sedgwick Ave. Assocs., 191 AD2d 319, 320). 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 (Edward Lehner, J.), entered July 2, 1998, which, insofar as appealed from, granted plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), and order, same court and Justice, entered on or about October 12, 1998, which, insofar as appealable, denied defendant’s motion to renew, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant’s liability under section 240 (1) was established as a matter of law by the uncontradicted evidence that plaintiff was injured when he fell from a moving scaffold that, while less than 20 feet high, lacked guardrails or other protective devices despite a foreseeable accumulation of water on its [211]*211platform caused by the continuous spraying that was a necessary part of the asbestos removal work plaintiff was performing (see, Garcia v 1122 E. 180th St. Corp., 250 AD2d 550, 551, citing Casabianca v Port Auth., 237 AD2d 112; Bland v Manocherian, 66 NY2d 452, 461). While plaintiff was not the sole witness to the accident, even if he were, “[t]he failure of any party to adduce a statement from plaintiff’s co-workers is no reason for denying plaintiff summary judgment, absent a showing, other than mere speculation, that a bona fide issue exists as to plaintiff’s credibility” (Urrea v Sedgwick Ave. Assocs., 191 AD2d 319, 320). Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Williams, Tom, Wallach and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D.2d 210, 693 N.Y.S.2d 107, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7499, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gonzalez-v-1251-americas-associates-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack