From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Avila v. Ashton Management Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 22, 2005
24 A.D.3d 273 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)

Opinion

7417.

December 22, 2005.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Yvonne Gonzalez, J.), entered on or about March 17, 2005, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the brief, denied the motion of defendant Yates Restoration Corp. for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6) claims, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Before: Buckley, P.J., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Saxe and Sullivan, JJ., concur.


Summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's Labor Law § 240 (1) claim was properly denied since the evidence showing that the scaffold utilized by plaintiff tipped when plaintiff and his coworker, "very near" to each other, exchanged places causing both of them to fall to the ground, did not permit the court to conclude, as a matter of law, that plaintiff's act of unhooking his safety belt was the sole proximate cause of his harm ( see Fajardo v. Trans World Equities Co., 286 AD2d 271).

Inasmuch as plaintiff alleged in the bill of particulars that Yates violated Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-5.8 and there was no evidence presented as to whether Yates provided tie-ins in accordance with the Code's requirement, the court properly denied Yates' motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim.

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


Summaries of

Avila v. Ashton Management Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 22, 2005
24 A.D.3d 273 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
Case details for

Avila v. Ashton Management Company

Case Details

Full title:JORGE AVILA, Respondent, v. ASHTON MANAGEMENT COMPANY et al., Defendants…

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

Date published: Dec 22, 2005

Citations

24 A.D.3d 273 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
807 N.Y.S.2d 24

Citing Cases

Sepulveda v. Con. Ed. Co. of N.Y.

However, if it was unnecessary for him to do so, the harness must be considered to have been an adequate…