Luna v. Zoological Society of Buffalo, Inc.

101 A.D.3d 1745, 958 N.Y.2d 807

This text of 101 A.D.3d 1745 (Luna v. Zoological Society of Buffalo, Inc.) 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
Luna v. Zoological Society of Buffalo, Inc., 101 A.D.3d 1745, 958 N.Y.2d 807 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Opinion

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries he sustained while working as a carpenter on a construction project for defendant. Supreme Court properly granted plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment on liability with respect to the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. Plaintiff sustained his initial burden of establishing that he was injured as the result of a fall from an elevated work surface and that [1746]*1746defendant failed to provide a sufficient safety device (see Ferris v Benbow Chem. Packaging, Inc., 74 AD3d 1831, 1832 [2010]; see generally Runner v New York Stock Exch., Inc., 13 NY3d 599, 603 [2009]). In opposition, defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact whether plaintiffs “ ‘own conduct, rather than any violation of Labor Law § 240 (1), was the sole proximate cause of [the] accident’ ” (Mazurett v Rochester City School Dist., 88 AD3d 1304, 1305 [2011], quoting Cahill v Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth., 4 NY3d 35, 40 [2004]). We reject defendant’s contention that there is an issue of fact whether plaintiff was a recalcitrant worker whose own actions were the sole proximate cause of the accident. Although defendant submitted evidence that plaintiff was instructed not to work in a particular area and violated those instructions, “the nondelegable duty imposed upon the owner and general contractor under Labor Law § 240 (1) is not met merely by providing safety instructions or by making other safety devices available, but by furnishing, placing and operating such devices so as to give [a worker] proper protection” (Long v Cellino & Barnes, P.C., 68 AD3d 1706, 1707 [2009] [internal quotation marks omitted]), which was not done here. Thus, “[t]he mere failure by plaintiff to follow safety instructions does not render plaintiff a recalcitrant worker” (Whiting v Dave Hennig, Inc., 28 AD3d 1105, 1106 [2006] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Present — Centra, J.P., Fahey, Valentino and Martoche, JJ.

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

Related

Cahill v. TRIBOROUGH
823 N.E.2d 439 (New York Court of Appeals, 2004)
Runner v. New York Stock Exchange, Inc.
922 N.E.2d 865 (New York Court of Appeals, 2009)
Whiting v. Dave Hennig, Inc.
28 A.D.3d 1105 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Long v. Cellino & Barnes, P.C.
68 A.D.3d 1706 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Ferris v. Benbow Chemical Packaging, Inc.
74 A.D.3d 1831 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Mazurett v. Rochester City School District
88 A.D.3d 1304 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
101 A.D.3d 1745, 958 N.Y.2d 807, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/luna-v-zoological-society-of-buffalo-inc-nyappdiv-2012.