From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Paperman v. Turner Construction Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 28, 1994
203 A.D.2d 205 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

April 28, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrass, J.).


As it is clear that plaintiff's injury was a direct result of the failure of defendants to provide adequate safety devices or other proper protection to plaintiff who fell off an A-frame ladder and sustained injuries while working for defendants, there was a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1), as a matter of law (see, MacNair v Salamon, 199 A.D.2d 170). Moreover, the purported culpability of plaintiff is not a defense to his section 240 (1) claim (Stolt v General Foods Corp., 81 N.Y.2d 918).

As to the third-party claim, while it appears that the third-party defendant was not covered by Citibank/Citicorp's policy of insurance at the time of the accident, and therefore, the policy of anti-subrogation would be inapplicable here, at the very least, a question of fact exists in such regard sufficient to preclude a grant of summary judgment on said claim.

Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Ross, Rubin, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.


Summaries of

Paperman v. Turner Construction Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 28, 1994
203 A.D.2d 205 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

Paperman v. Turner Construction Company

Case Details

Full title:ARTHUR PAPERMAN, Respondent, v. TURNER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY et al.…

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

Date published: Apr 28, 1994

Citations

203 A.D.2d 205 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
611 N.Y.S.2d 166

Citing Cases

Klein v. City of New York

Defendant failed to shoulder its burden and its repeated argument that the ladder was not shown to be faulty…