Norwood v. Whiting-Turner Contracting Co.

40 A.D.3d 718, 836 N.Y.S.2d 222
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 8, 2007
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 40 A.D.3d 718 (Norwood v. Whiting-Turner Contracting 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
Norwood v. Whiting-Turner Contracting Co., 40 A.D.3d 718, 836 N.Y.S.2d 222 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Pagones, J.), dated June 13, 2006, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff Ronald Norwood (hereinafter Norwood) allegedly was injured when the makeshift scaffold on which he was standing failed, causing him to fall approximately six feet to the ground below. The scaffold consisted of unsecured planks laid on top of pipes protruding from the building. At his deposition, Norwood testified that he could not have used a ladder to reach his work site, and that a foreman or supervisor had told him to use “what was there” in order to reach the area.

On this record, Norwood established, prima facie, that the makeshift scaffold did not provide him with proper protection, as required pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1), and that the statutory violation was a proximate cause of his injury. In opposition, the defendant failed to present evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether a statutory violation occurred or whether Norwood’s own conduct was the sole proximate cause of the accident (see Moniuszko v Chatham Green, Inc., 24 AD3d 638 [2005]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted Norwood’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1) (see Nimirovski v [719]*719Vornado Realty Trust Co., 29 AD3d 762 [2006]; Torino v KLM Constr., 257 AD2d 541 [1999]). Schmidt, J.P., Goldstein, Fisher and Lifson, JJ., concur.

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

Related

King v. Villette
2017 NY Slip Op 7596 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Ortiz v. 164 Atlantic Avenue, LLC
77 A.D.3d 807 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Tapia v. Mario Genovesi & Sons, Inc.
72 A.D.3d 800 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Treu v. Cappelletti
71 A.D.3d 994 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Morgan v. Neighborhood Partnership Housing Development Fund Co.
50 A.D.3d 866 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
40 A.D.3d 718, 836 N.Y.S.2d 222, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/norwood-v-whiting-turner-contracting-co-nyappdiv-2007.