Phearsdorf v. State of New York

2019 NY Slip Op 6921

• Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
• Decided: September 27, 2019
• Docket: 834 CA 18-01682
• Status: Published

Opinion

Phearsdorf v State of New York (2019 NY Slip Op 06921)

Phearsdorf v State of New York

2019 NY Slip Op 06921

Decided on September 27, 2019

Appellate Division, Fourth Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on September 27, 2019 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, CARNI, TROUTMAN, AND WINSLOW, JJ.

834 CA 18-01682

[*1]DONALD J. PHEARSDORF AND DANIELLE PHEARSDORF, CLAIMANTS-RESPONDENTS,

v

STATE OF NEW YORK, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. (CLAIM NO. 121775.)

RUPP BAASE PFALZGRAF CUNNINGHAM LLC, ROCHESTER (MATTHEW C. LENAHAN OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

BRIAN CHAPIN YORK, JAMESTOWN, FOR CLAIMANTS-RESPONDENTS.

Appeal from a judgment of the Court of Claims (Renee Forgensi Minarik, J.), dated March 30, 2018. The interlocutory judgment determined that defendant is liable for the injuries sustained by claimant Donald J. Phearsdorf.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from an interlocutory judgment, entered following a nonjury trial, in favor of claimants on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to sustain the judgment and giving due deference to the determinations of the Court of Claims regarding witness credibility (see generally Matter of City of Syracuse Indus. Dev. Agency [Alterm, Inc.], 20 AD3d 168, 170 [4th Dept 2005]), we conclude that, contrary to defendant's contention, there is a fair interpretation of the evidence supporting the court's determination that claimant Donald J. Phearsdorf was not furnished with the requisite safety devices and that the absence of adequate safety devices was a proximate cause of his injuries (see generally Floyd v New York State Thruway Auth., 125 AD3d 1456, 1458 [4th Dept 2015]). We have reviewed defendant's remaining contentions and conclude that none warrants reversal or modification of the judgment.

Entered: September 27, 2019

Mark W. Bennett

Clerk of the Court