Sergeant v. Murphy Family Trust

284 A.D.2d 991, 726 N.Y.S.2d 537, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5968
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 8, 2001·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

—Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in denying plaintiff’s motion seeking partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). Plaintiff was employed as a roofer by third-party defendant. On the date of the accident, plaintiff was told to report to the foreman on the roof for his work assignment. Plaintiff stepped onto the roof and, while walking toward the foreman, stepped onto yellow insulation where a roof panel had been removed. The insulation had no underlying support, and plaintiff fell at least 21 feet to the floor below. At the emergency room, a blood test revealed that plaintiffs blood alcohol level was 0.23%.

[992] It is undisputed that, on the date of the accident, no safety devices were in place to prevent employees from falling through or off the roof, and thus plaintiff established his entitlement to judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) as a matter of law. Although defendant raised an issue of fact whether plaintiff was intoxicated, that issue is not sufficient to defeat plaintiffs entitlement to partial summary judgment. “Because there is no dispute that there were no safety devices provided, this is not a case where ‘a reasonable jury could * * * conclude [ ] that plaintiffs actions were the sole proximate cause of his injuries, and consequently that liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) [will] not attach’ ” (DiVincenzo v Tripart Dev., 272 AD2d 904, 905). We therefore modify the order by granting plaintiffs motion. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Centra, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present— Pigott, Jr., P. J., Pine, Hurlbutt, Scudder and Burns, JJ.

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

Sergeant v. Murphy Family Trust, 284 A.D.2d 991, 726 N.Y.S.2d 537, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5968 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

284 A.D.2d 991 (Sergeant v. Murphy Family Trust) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Berman v. Franchised Distributors, Inc.
88 A.D.3d 755 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Moran v. 200 Varick Street Associates, LLC
80 A.D.3d 581 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Kindlon v. Schoharie Central School District
66 A.D.3d 1200 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Melson v. Sebastiano
32 A.D.3d 1259 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Bondanella v. Rosenfeld
298 A.D.2d 941 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Podbielski v. KMO-361 Realty Associates
294 A.D.2d 552 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Sergeant v. Murphy Family Trust
292 A.D.2d 761 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)