Opinion
01-12-2016
Jorge GUAMAN, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. ANSLEY & COMPANY, LLC, et al., Defendants–Respondents, LG Contracting, Defendant. Deeper Life Bible Church, Inc., Third–Party Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Keu Architectural Studio, P.C., et al., Third–Party Defendants.
Ginarte O'Dwyer Gonzalez Gallardo & Winograd, LLP, New York (Steven R. Payne of counsel), for appellant. Kelly, Rode & Kelly, LLP, Mineola (Susan M. Ulrich of counsel), for Ansley & Company, LLC, respondent. Gannon, Rosenfarb & Drossman, New York (Lisa L. Gokhulsingh of counsel), for Deeper Life Bible Church, Inc., respondent.
Ginarte O'Dwyer Gonzalez Gallardo & Winograd, LLP, New York (Steven R. Payne of counsel), for appellant.
Kelly, Rode & Kelly, LLP, Mineola (Susan M. Ulrich of counsel), for Ansley & Company, LLC, respondent.
Gannon, Rosenfarb & Drossman, New York (Lisa L. Gokhulsingh of counsel), for Deeper Life Bible Church, Inc., respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Wilma Guzman, J.), entered December 23, 2014, which, to the extent appealed from, denied, without prejudice to renewal after completion of discovery, plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) claims against defendant Deeper Life Bible Church, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted.
Plaintiff's motion was improperly dismissed as premature, since plaintiff and a coworker, who were the lone individuals present at the time of plaintiff's fall from a ladder, were each deposed. Further, defendant made no attempt to show that facts essential to justify its opposition to the motion exist, but cannot be stated absent depositions of the defendants and third-party defendants (see generally Woods v. 126 Riverside Dr. Corp., 64 A.D.3d 422, 882 N.Y.S.2d 106 [1st Dept.2009], lv. denied 14 N.Y.3d 704, 2010 WL 606286 [2010] ).
Plaintiff established, as a matter of law, that his fall from an inadequately secured ladder, due to an overhead beam striking the ladder after he cut the beam in two pieces, was foreseeable and amounted to a Labor Law § 240(1) violation that proximately caused his injurious fall (see e.g. Dasilva v. A.J. Contr. Co., 262 A.D.2d 214, 694 N.Y.S.2d 353 [1st Dept.1999] ; Quinlan v. Eastern Refractories Co., 217 A.D.2d 819, 629 N.Y.S.2d 819 [3d Dept.1995] ). Given the absence of adequate safety protections afforded to plaintiff in light of the elevation-related work hazards he faced, defendants' arguments that plaintiff's own actions were the sole proximate cause of his fall are unavailing (see DeRose v. Bloomindale's Inc., 120 A.D.3d 41, 45–46, 986 N.Y.S.2d 127 [1st Dept.2014] ), and the defense argument—sounding in comparative negligence—is no defense to a Labor Law § 240(1) claim (see Stankey v. Tishman Constr. Corp. of N.Y., 131 A.D.3d 430, 15 N.Y.S.3d 48 [1st Dept.2015] ).As plaintiff has established defendant property owner's liability as a matter of law under Labor Law § 240(1), this Court need not reach defendant's arguments regarding the plaintiff's Labor Law § 241(6) claim (see generally Goreczny v. 16 Ct. St. Owner LLC, 110 A.D.3d 465, 973 N.Y.S.2d 54 [1st Dept.2013] ; Auriemma v. Biltmore Theatre, LLC, 82 A.D.3d 1, 11–12, 917 N.Y.S.2d 130 [1st Dept.2011] ).
MAZZARELLI, J.P., FRIEDMAN, GISCHE, KAPNICK, JJ., concur.