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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 14, 2004·Published

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.

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

11 A.D.3d 303 (Lezcano v. Metropolitan Life Insurance) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related