Gonzalez v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gonzalez v. City of New York

2017 NY Slip Op 4555, 151 A.D.3d 492, 53 N.Y.S.3d 535

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

DecidedJune 8, 2017

Docket4205 301423/14

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 4555 (Gonzalez v. City of New York) 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. City of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 4555, 151 A.D.3d 492, 53 N.Y.S.3d 535 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth L. Thompson, Jr., J.), entered December 28, 2016, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendants-appellants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim as against them, and granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Whether or not the scaffold provided workers at the site with adequate protection for working at an elevation, the unsecured plank falling from the scaffold and striking plaintiff as the scaffold was being moved constituted a distinct elevation- *493 related hazard requiring the securing of the plank for the purpose of moving the scaffold (see Castillo v 62-25 30th Ave. Realty, LLC, 47 AD3d 865 [2d Dept 2008], citing Narducci v Manhasset Bay Assoc., 96 NY2d 259, 267-268 [2001]; cf. Nicometi v Vineyards of Fredonia, LLC, 25 NY3d 90 [2015] [slipping on ice and falling while using stilts not within ambit of Labor Law § 240 (1)]). Plaintiffs employer’s assertion that all his workers, including plaintiff, knew that a scaffold must be dismantled before being moved was unsupported by any evidence that plaintiff had ever been so instructed, and was therefore insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact whether he was the sole proximate cause of the accident (Gallagher v New York Post, 14 NY3d 83 [2010]).

Concur—Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Andrias, Moskowitz and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth L. Thompson, Jr., J.), entered December 28, 2016, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendants-appellants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim as against them, and granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Whether or not the scaffold provided workers at the site with adequate protection for working at an elevation, the unsecured plank falling from the scaffold and striking plaintiff as the scaffold was being moved constituted a distinct elevation- *493 related hazard requiring the securing of the plank for the purpose of moving the scaffold (see Castillo v 62-25 30th Ave. Realty, LLC, 47 AD3d 865 [2d Dept 2008], citing Narducci v Manhasset Bay Assoc., 96 NY2d 259, 267-268 [2001]; cf. Nicometi v Vineyards of Fredonia, LLC, 25 NY3d 90 [2015] [slipping on ice and falling while using stilts not within ambit of Labor Law § 240 (1)]). Plaintiffs employer’s assertion that all his workers, including plaintiff, knew that a scaffold must be dismantled before being moved was unsupported by any evidence that plaintiff had ever been so instructed, and was therefore insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact whether he was the sole proximate cause of the accident (Gallagher v New York Post, 14 NY3d 83 [2010]).

Concur—Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Andrias, Moskowitz and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 4555, 151 A.D.3d 492, 53 N.Y.S.3d 535, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gonzalez-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack