From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sdregas v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 16, 2003
309 A.D.2d 612 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

1883, 1884

October 16, 2003.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered July 10, 2002, which, upon a jury verdict in this Labor Law action, inter alia, awarded plaintiff damages, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal by third-party defendant Keystone Construction Corp. from an underlying order, unanimously dismissed, without costs. Appeals by defendants City of New York and Perini/O G II from the same judgment and an underlying order, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as abandoned.

Lisa M. Comeau, for plaintiff-respondent.

Dawn C. DeSimone, for third-party defendant-appellant.

Before: Andrias, J.P., Ellerin, Williams, Lerner, Gonzalez, JJ.


The trial evidence, fairly interpreted (see Nicastro v. Park, 113 A.D.2d 129, 134), permitted the jury to render the verdict it did. The evidence of appellant's violations of 12 NYCRR § 23-1.8 and 1.9, while not conclusive, did constitute some evidence of negligence and, as such, was sufficient to reserve the issue of whether appellant's conduct had been reasonable and adequate under the circumstances to the trier of fact (Rizzuto v. L.A. Wenger Contr., 91 N.Y.2d 343, 349, 351). While the court would have been better advised to utilize the phrase "some evidence of negligence," the full import of the charge conveyed the proper standard. The court appropriately decided not to charge 12 NYCRR § 23-1.6, which provides, in pertinent part, that an employee "shall use the safety devices provided for his personal protection and he shall not tamper with or render ineffective any safety device, safeguard or personal protective equipment." There was no evidence to justify such a charge.

Contrary to appellant's contention, plaintiff met his burden to establish his loss of actual past earnings with reasonable certainty by his submission of pay stubs and W-2 forms (cf. Martinez v. Royal-Pak Sys., 300 A.D.2d 198), the use of which went unchallenged at trial.

We have considered appellant's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

Sdregas v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 16, 2003
309 A.D.2d 612 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

Sdregas v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:ANTONIO SDREGAS, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, ET AL.…

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

Date published: Oct 16, 2003

Citations

309 A.D.2d 612 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
765 N.Y.S.2d 610

Citing Cases

Taylor v. Family Dollar Stores of NY, Inc.

Generally, a plaintiff has the burden of establishing damages for past and future lost earnings with…

Spence v. New York City Tr. Auth.

k and failing to use an available insulated mat]; Snowden, 248 AD2d at 236 ["issues of fact exist as to…