Opinion
69 Index No. 159121/17 Case No. 2022-05066
04-18-2023
James MEJIA, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. SUPER P57 LLC et al., Defendants–Respondents.
Grey & Grey, LLP, Farmingdale (Sherman B. Kerner of counsel), for appellant. Freehill Hogan & Mahar LLP, New York (William H. Yost of counsel), for respondents.
Grey & Grey, LLP, Farmingdale (Sherman B. Kerner of counsel), for appellant.
Freehill Hogan & Mahar LLP, New York (William H. Yost of counsel), for respondents.
Kapnick, J.P., Moulton, Kennedy, Mendez, Pitt–Burke, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (James D'Auguste, J.), entered September 15, 2022, which, to the extent appealed from, denied plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim and granted defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff failed to show entitlement to partial summary judgment. Plaintiff established little other than that he fell from the scaffold, which in and of itself does not establish a claim, under Labor Law § 240(1), which requires both a violation of the statute and causation (see Blake v. Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of N.Y. City, Inc., 1 N.Y.3d 280, 288–289, 771 N.Y.S.2d 484, 803 N.E.2d 757 [2003] ).
Defendants demonstrated prima facie both that the scaffold was equipped with proper guardrails, which provided an adequate safety device, and was undamaged after the alleged accident, so that there was no violation of Labor Law § 240(1) (see Fabrizi v. 1095 Ave. of The Ams., L.L.C., 22 N.Y.3d 658, 663, 985 N.Y.S.2d 416, 8 N.E.3d 791 [2014] ). Moreover, plaintiff was unable to recall how he fell from the scaffold and could provide no evidence that his fall was caused by the lack of a safety device, so that any finding of a violation would be purely speculative (see Public Adm'r of Queens County v. 124 Ridge LLC, 203 A.D.3d 493, 494, 165 N.Y.S.3d 36 [1st Dept. 2022] ; Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y. Inc. v. Vilsmeier Auction Co., Inc., 21 A.D.3d 726, 729, 800 N.Y.S.2d 690 [1st Dept. 2005] ).
We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.