Krejbich v. Schimenti Construction Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Krejbich v. Schimenti Construction Co.

94 A.D.3d 668, 942 N.Y.S.2d 538

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

DecidedApril 26, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 94 A.D.3d 668 (Krejbich v. Schimenti 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

Krejbich v. Schimenti Construction Co., 94 A.D.3d 668, 942 N.Y.S.2d 538 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Doris Ling-Cohan, J.), entered October 12, 2011, which granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability on his cause of action under Labor Law § 240 (1), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Flaintiff established his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Flaintiff testified that while he was installing wooden siding to a shed, the A-frame ladder he was standing upon tipped over, causing him to fall to the ground and sustain injury. Plaintiffs version of events was corroborated by his coworker. Accordingly, a violation of section 240 (1) was established (see Harrison v V.R.H. Constr. Corp., 72 AD3d 547 [2010]; Thompson v St. Charles Condominiums, 303 AD2d 152, 154 [2003], lv dismissed 100 NY2d 556 [2003]).

In opposition, defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The defendants failed to put forth any evidence of record that establishes that plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his injuries. Moreover, conflicting accounts as to the positioning of the ladder after the accident and the color of the ladder that plaintiff was using do not create an issue of fact as to proximate [669]*669cause (see e.g. Vergara v SS 133 W. 21, LLC, 21 AD3d 279, 280 [2005]).

We have considered defendants’ remaining contentions, including that the height from which plaintiff fell was de minimis, and find them unavailing. Concur — Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Catterson, Renwick and Román, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Doris Ling-Cohan, J.), entered October 12, 2011, which granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability on his cause of action under Labor Law § 240 (1), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Flaintiff established his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Flaintiff testified that while he was installing wooden siding to a shed, the A-frame ladder he was standing upon tipped over, causing him to fall to the ground and sustain injury. Plaintiffs version of events was corroborated by his coworker. Accordingly, a violation of section 240 (1) was established (see Harrison v V.R.H. Constr. Corp., 72 AD3d 547 [2010]; Thompson v St. Charles Condominiums, 303 AD2d 152, 154 [2003], lv dismissed 100 NY2d 556 [2003]).

In opposition, defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The defendants failed to put forth any evidence of record that establishes that plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his injuries. Moreover, conflicting accounts as to the positioning of the ladder after the accident and the color of the ladder that plaintiff was using do not create an issue of fact as to proximate [669]*669cause (see e.g. Vergara v SS 133 W. 21, LLC, 21 AD3d 279, 280 [2005]).

We have considered defendants’ remaining contentions, including that the height from which plaintiff fell was de minimis, and find them unavailing. Concur — Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Catterson, Renwick and Román, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

94 A.D.3d 668, 942 N.Y.S.2d 538, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/krejbich-v-schimenti-construction-co-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack