Lezcano v. Metropolitan Life Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lezcano v. Metropolitan Life Insurance

11 A.D.3d 303, 782 N.Y.S.2d 451, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11933

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

DecidedOctober 14, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 11 A.D.3d 303 (Lezcano v. Metropolitan Life Insurance) 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

Lezcano v. Metropolitan Life Insurance, 11 A.D.3d 303, 782 N.Y.S.2d 451, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11933 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Amended judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jacqueline W. Silbermann, J.), entered February 11, 2004, which, after a jury trial, awarded plaintiffs damages in accordance with CELR article 50-B, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

There was unrebutted testimony at trial that plaintiff Secundino was injured when he fell from a scaffold not equipped with guardrails or other protective devices. Labor Law § 240 (1) imposes absolute liability on owners, contractors and their agents for any breach of the statutory duty that proximately causes a plaintiff’s injury in these circumstances (Panek v County of Albany, 99 NY2d 452, 457 [2003]), a duty that is nondelegable (Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 NY2d 494, 500 [1993]). The failure of any party to produce another witness to the event is no basis for denying a directed verdict as to liability, absent a bona fide issue, based on more than speculation, as to the injured party’s credibility (Urrea v Sedgwick Ave. Assoc., 191 AD2d 319 [1993]). Defendants’ liability was established as a matter of law by clear evidence that the injured worker had been provided a scaffold without guardrails or other protective devices that might have prevented his fall (see Morrison v City of New York, 306 AD2d 86 [2003]).

[304]*304The jury’s monetary awards do not deviate from what is reasonable compensation under the circumstances. Concur—Tom, J.P., Williams, Marlow and Sweeny, JJ.

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

Amended judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jacqueline W. Silbermann, J.), entered February 11, 2004, which, after a jury trial, awarded plaintiffs damages in accordance with CELR article 50-B, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

There was unrebutted testimony at trial that plaintiff Secundino was injured when he fell from a scaffold not equipped with guardrails or other protective devices. Labor Law § 240 (1) imposes absolute liability on owners, contractors and their agents for any breach of the statutory duty that proximately causes a plaintiff’s injury in these circumstances (Panek v County of Albany, 99 NY2d 452, 457 [2003]), a duty that is nondelegable (Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 NY2d 494, 500 [1993]). The failure of any party to produce another witness to the event is no basis for denying a directed verdict as to liability, absent a bona fide issue, based on more than speculation, as to the injured party’s credibility (Urrea v Sedgwick Ave. Assoc., 191 AD2d 319 [1993]). Defendants’ liability was established as a matter of law by clear evidence that the injured worker had been provided a scaffold without guardrails or other protective devices that might have prevented his fall (see Morrison v City of New York, 306 AD2d 86 [2003]).

[304]*304The jury’s monetary awards do not deviate from what is reasonable compensation under the circumstances. Concur—Tom, J.P., Williams, Marlow and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 A.D.3d 303, 782 N.Y.S.2d 451, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11933, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lezcano-v-metropolitan-life-insurance-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack