Summary
In Serrano v 432 Park South Realty Co., LLC, 8 AD3d 202, 779 N.Y.S.2d 198, 199 (1st Dep't 2004) (plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment where "[p]laintiff established that his accident was attributable to a lack of proper safety equipment and/or the failure to secure the ladder upon which he was working"; "Even if plaintiff had been negligent in continuing his work in his coworker's momentary absence, no triable issue would therefore be raised as... such negligence would not be susceptible of characterization as the sole proximate cause of plaintiff's harm").
Summary of this case from Rodriguez v. LupinoOpinion
3824.
Decided June 29, 2004.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered January 30, 2004, which, to the extent appealed from, inter alia, granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as to liability on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim, and denied defendant's cross motion insofar as it sought summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's Labor Law § 241(6) claim, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant the cross motion insofar as to award defendant summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 241(6) claim, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.
Brill Associates, P.C., New York (Haydn J. Brill of counsel), for appellant.
Gorayeb Associates, P.C., New York (Mark Edwards of counsel), for respondent.
Before: Nardelli, J.P., Saxe, Sullivan, Marlow, Catterson, JJ.
Plaintiff established that his accident was attributable to a lack of proper safety equipment and/or the failure to secure the ladder upon which he was working. Even if plaintiff had been negligent in continuing his work in his coworker's momentary absence, no triable issue would therefore be raised as to whether liability should be imposed upon defendant pursuant to Labor Law § 240(1), since such negligence would not be susceptible of characterization as the sole proximate cause of plaintiff's harm ( see Dasilva v. A.J., Contr. Co., 262 A.D.2d 214).
Summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's Labor Law § 241(6) claim should have been granted since the Industrial Code sections cited by plaintiff as predicates for the claim are either insufficiently specific or inapplicable ( see Lawyer v. Rotterdam Ventures, 204 A.D.2d 878, lv dismissed 84 N.Y.2d 864).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.