Opinion
June 6, 1995
Appeal from the Civil Court, Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.).
A fair interpretation of the evidence supports the jury's findings that defendant could have provided plaintiff with a jack that would have made the work place safe from the defect that caused the accident, and that its failure to do so was the sole proximate cause of plaintiff's injuries. "The plaintiff's injury was not due to the unsafe nature of the work but to [defendant's] failure to furnish a reasonably safe place in which to perform the work." ( Colello v. Stevenson Co., 284 App. Div. 805, 806, affd 308 N.Y. 935.) That the testimony on this point was in conflict is not a ground for finding the verdict to be against the weight of the evidence ( DiLauro v. Consolidated Edison Co., 200 A.D.2d 485). Contrary to defendant's argument, Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co. ( 81 N.Y.2d 494), decided three years after the trial judgment was rendered, effected a sharp change in the law concerning liability under Labor Law § 241 (6), and, as such, Appellate Term did not err in declining to give that decision retroactive effect ( see, Matter of Finelli v. Chassin, 206 A.D.2d 717, 718). The amounts awarded, as reduced by Appellate Term and stipulated to by plaintiff, do not deviate materially from what would be reasonable compensation (CPLR 5501 [c]). We have considered defendant's remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Kupferman, Asch, Williams and Tom, JJ.