Rivera v. Dafna Construction Co.

27 A.D.3d 545, 813 N.Y.S.2d 109
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 14, 2006
StatusPublished
Cited by20 cases

This text of 27 A.D.3d 545 (Rivera v. Dafna Construction 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
Rivera v. Dafna Construction Co., 27 A.D.3d 545, 813 N.Y.S.2d 109 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (G. Aronin, J.), dated August 11, 2004, which granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability on his cause of action pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff established a prima facie case of liability on his Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action (see Klein v City of New York, 89 NY2d 833, 835 [1996]; Schuler v Kings Plaza Shopping Ctr. & Mar., 294 AD2d 556, 558 [2002]; Sinzieri v Expositions, Inc., 270 AD2d 332, 333 [2000]; Dasilva v A.J. Contr. Co., 262 AD2d 214 [1999]; cf. Alava v City of New York, 246 AD2d 614, 615 [1998]). The plaintiff was injured while attempting to demolish a 10-foot high ceiling. At the time, the plaintiff was standing on an unsecured eight-foot tall A-frame ladder, at a height of approximately six feet. When a large portion of the ceiling collapsed, the ladder became unsteady, causing the plaintiff to fall. It is undisputed that no safety devices were provided which might have prevented the accident. The fact that the accident was unwitnessed does not preclude granting summary judgment to the plaintiff (see Yurkovich v Kvarner Woodworking, 289 AD2d 183, 184 [2001]; Cruz v Turner Constr. Co., 279 AD2d 322, 323 [2001]; Bras v Atlas Constr. Corp., 166 AD2d 401 [1990]; see also Klein v City of New York, supra at 834).

In opposition, the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The defendant did not offer any evidence, other than mere [546]*546speculation, that undermined the prima facie case or presented a bona fide issue regarding the plaintiffs credibility as to a material fact (see Klein v City of New York, supra at 835; Pineda v Kechek Realty Corp., 285 AD2d 496, 497 [2001]; Rodriguez v Forest City Jay St. Assoc., 234 AD2d 68, 69-70 [1996]; Figueroa v Manhattanville Coll., 193 AD2d 778, 779 [1993]). Crane, J.P., Mastro, Rivera and Spolzino, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Pillco v. 160 Dikeman St., LLC
2025 NY Slip Op 04495 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
McDonnell v. Sandaro Realty, Inc.
2018 NY Slip Op 7114 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Pena v. Jane H. Goldman Residuary Trust No. 1
2018 NY Slip Op 1255 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Hai-Zhong Pang v. LNK Best Group, Inc.
111 A.D.3d 889 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Gallagher v. Resnick
107 A.D.3d 942 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Melchor v. Singh
90 A.D.3d 866 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Gonzalez v. AMCC Corp.
88 A.D.3d 945 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Berman v. Franchised Distributors, Inc.
88 A.D.3d 755 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Fox v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz, L.P.
83 A.D.3d 889 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Monioudis v. City of New York
82 A.D.3d 945 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Campbell v. 111 Chelsea Commerce, L.P.
80 A.D.3d 721 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Tapia v. Mario Genovesi & Sons, Inc.
72 A.D.3d 800 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
McCaffery v. Wright & Co. Construction, Inc.
71 A.D.3d 842 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Inga v. EBS North Hills, LLC
69 A.D.3d 568 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Yin Min Zhu v. Triple L. Group, LLC
64 A.D.3d 590 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Barr v. 157 5 Avenue
60 A.D.3d 796 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Ricciardi v. Bernard Janowitz Construction Corp.
49 A.D.3d 624 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Cordova v. 360 Park Avenue South Associates
33 A.D.3d 750 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
27 A.D.3d 545, 813 N.Y.S.2d 109, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rivera-v-dafna-construction-co-nyappdiv-2006.