Hart v. Turner Construction Co.

30 A.D.3d 213, 818 N.Y.S.2d 499
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 13, 2006
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 30 A.D.3d 213 (Hart v. Turner Construction 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
Hart v. Turner Construction Co., 30 A.D.3d 213, 818 N.Y.S.2d 499 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis B. York, J.), [214]*214entered July 6, 2005, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the brief, granted plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, and denied defendants’ cross motion insofar as it sought summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff, in moving for summary judgment as to liability on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, met his prima facie burden through testimony that while he performed his assigned work, the eight-foot ladder on which he was standing shifted, causing him to fall to the ground (see Montalvo v J. Petrocelli Constr., Inc., 8 AD3d 173 [2004]; Orellano v 29 E. 37th St. Realty Corp., 292 AD2d 289 [2002]). While defendants contend that the grant of summary judgment to plaintiff was in error because there is a triable issue as to whether plaintiff himself was the sole proximate cause of his alleged harm (see Blake v Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of N.Y. City, 1 NY3d 280, 290-292 [2003]; Weininger v Hagedorn & Co., 91 NY2d 958, 960 [1998]), there is no view of the evidence plausibly supporting that contention. We note particularly the absence of any indication that the ladder was secured or that plaintiff was provided with other safety devices that might have protected him.

The denial of summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 241 (6) was proper. Plaintiff alleged the violation of sufficiently specific Industrial Code provisions (i.e., 12 NYCRR 23-1.21 [b] [4] [ii]; [e] [3]), and a factual issue is raised as to whether a violation of these provisions was a proximate cause of his injury (see e.g. Montalvo v J. Petrocelli Constr., Inc., supra). Concur— Tom, J.E, Saxe, Friedman, Sullivan and McGuire, JJ.

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

Related

Valladares v. Henry V. Murray Senior, LLC
2024 NY Slip Op 30926(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2024)
Rivera v. Home Depot U.S.A. Inc.
312 F. Supp. 3d 406 (S.D. Illinois, 2018)
Garcia v. Church of St. Joseph of the Holy Family of the City of N.Y.
2017 NY Slip Op 239 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
FLADD, JESSE v. INSTALLED BUILDING PRODUCTS, LLC
134 A.D.3d 1480 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Masiello v. 21 East 79th Street Corp.
126 A.D.3d 596 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Hamill v. Mutual of America Investment Corp.
79 A.D.3d 478 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Cevallos v. Morning Dun Realty, Corp.
78 A.D.3d 547 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Kozlowski v. Ripin
60 A.D.3d 638 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Rakowicz v. Fashion Institute of Technology
56 A.D.2d 747 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Perez v. NYC Partnership Housing Development Fund Co.
55 A.D.3d 419 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Rieger v. 303 East 37 Owners Corp.
49 A.D.3d 347 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Lesisz v. Salvation Army
40 A.D.3d 1050 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Arigo v. Spencer
39 A.D.3d 1143 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
30 A.D.3d 213, 818 N.Y.S.2d 499, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hart-v-turner-construction-co-nyappdiv-2006.