From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Boguszewski v. Solo Salon & Spa

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 14, 2003
309 A.D.2d 777 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2003-03420

Argued September 16, 2003.

October 14, 2003.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lewis, J.), dated March 14, 2003, which granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action.

Morris, Duffy, Alonso Faley, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Yolanda L. Himmelberger and Jeoungson Kim of counsel), for appellants.

David H. Perecman Associates, PLLC, New York, N.Y. (David H. Perecman and Rudolf B. Radna of counsel), for respondent.

Before: A. GAIL PRUDENTI, P.J., NANCY E. SMITH, WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, HOWARD MILLER, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is denied.

In order to establish prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on a cause of action pursuant to Labor Law § 240(1), a plaintiff must provide evidence that the statute was violated and that the violation was the proximate cause of his or her injuries ( see Peter v. Nisseli Realty Co., 300 A.D.2d 289, Wagner v. Skanska Constr. Co., 289 A.D.2d 324, 325). If a reasonable factfinder could conclude that the plaintiff's own actions were the sole proximate cause of his or her injuries, the plaintiff is not entitled to summary judgment on the issue of liability ( see Weininger v. Hagedorn Co., 91 N.Y.2d 958, 960). Here, issues of fact exist regarding the manner in which the plaintiff fell from the ladder, due in part to his inconsistent deposition testimony with respect to the events leading up to the fall, and his inability to recall the fall, precluding a determination that the plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Accordingly, the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability on his Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action should have been denied ( id.; Costello v. Hapco Realty, Inc., 305 A.D.2d 445; Cudden v. Olympic Bd. Of Mgrs., 300 A.D.2d 616; Jiron v. China Buddhist Assn., 266 A.D.2d 347).

PRUDENTI, P.J., SMITH, FRIEDMANN and H. MILLER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Boguszewski v. Solo Salon & Spa

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 14, 2003
309 A.D.2d 777 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

Boguszewski v. Solo Salon & Spa

Case Details

Full title:MAREK BOGUSZEWSKI, respondent, v. SOLO SALON AND SPA, ET AL., appellants

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

Date published: Oct 14, 2003

Citations

309 A.D.2d 777 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
765 N.Y.S.2d 804

Citing Cases

Symonds v. 1114 Ave. of the Ams., LLC

See Costello v. Hapco Realty, Inc., 305 AD2d 445 (2nd Dept, 2003); Tate v. Clancy-Cullen Storage, 171 AD2d…

Singh v. Six Ten Man

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs to the defendant…