From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Arnold v. Baldwin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jun 5, 2009
63 A.D.3d 1621 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)

Opinion

No. 781 CA 08-02132.

June 5, 2009.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Thomas A. Stander, J.), entered April 15, 2008 in a personal injury action. The order denied defendants' motion for summary judgment and granted plaintiffs cross motion for partial summary judgment on liability.

GOLDBERG SEGALLA LLP, ROCHESTER (RICHARD C. BRISTER OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

CELLINO BARNES, P.C., ROCHESTER (SAREER A. FAZILI OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.

Present: Scudder, P.J., Fahey, Peradotto, Carni and Green, JJ.


It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this Labor Law action seeking damages for injuries he sustained when he fell approximately 11 feet from a ladder to the ground while painting a commercial building. Supreme Court properly granted plaintiffs cross motion for partial summary judgment on liability with respect to the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. "Plaintiff met his initial burden by submitting his uncontroverted deposition testimony in which he testified that [the] ladder shifted, thus establishing as a matter of law that it was not so placed . . . as to give proper protection to plaintiff' ( Evans v Syracuse Model Neighborhood Corp., 53 AD3d 1135, 1136 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Whalen v ExxonMobil Oil Corp., 50 AD3d 1553), and he further established that defendants' violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) was a proximate cause of his injuries ( see Rudnik v Brogor Realty Corp., 45 AD3d 828, 829). Thus, it cannot be said that plaintiff was "solely to blame for [them]" ( Blake v Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of NY. City, 1 NY3d 280, 290; see Woods v Design Ctr., LLC, 42 AD3d 876, 877). Defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to the cross motion ( see generally Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562). The evidence submitted by defendants establishing "that the ladder was structurally sound and not defective is not relevant on the issue of whether it was properly placed" ( Whalen, 50 AD3d at 1554 [internal quotation marks omitted]).


Summaries of

Arnold v. Baldwin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jun 5, 2009
63 A.D.3d 1621 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)
Case details for

Arnold v. Baldwin

Case Details

Full title:TONY ARNOLD, Respondent, v. BALDWIN REAL ESTATE CORPORATION et al.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Jun 5, 2009

Citations

63 A.D.3d 1621 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)
2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 4576
880 N.Y.S.2d 418

Citing Cases

Wolf v. Ledcor Constr. Inc.

at the work site (see e.g.Kopasz v. City of Buffalo, 148 A.D.3d 1686, 1687, 50 N.Y.S.3d 654 [4th Dept. 2017]…

Kirbis v. LP Ciminelli, Inc.

Plaintiff thus established as a matter of law " that it was not so placed . . . as to give proper protection…