From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brown v. 44 Street Development, LLC

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Mar 31, 2016
137 A.D.3d 703 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)

Summary

In Brown, as mentioned, the plaintiff was awarded summary judgment when his foot fell into a hole in the rebar, 12-18 inches deep, while he was walking across said rebar.

Summary of this case from McCoy v. 43-25 Hunter L.L.C.

Opinion

03-31-2016

Donald BROWN, et al., Plaintiffs–Respondents, v. 44 STREET DEVELOPMENT, LLC, et al., Defendants–Appellants.

Ropers Majeski Kohn & Bentley, New York (Jason L. Beckerman of counsel), for appellants. Rimland & Associates, P.C., New York (Robert Elan of counsel), respondents.


Ropers Majeski Kohn & Bentley, New York (Jason L. Beckerman of counsel), for appellants.

Rimland & Associates, P.C., New York (Robert Elan of counsel), respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Anil C. Singh, J.), entered March 23, 2015, which, insofar as appealed from, denied defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs' claim pursuant to Labor Law § 240(1), and granted plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability on that claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff was injured when, while carrying wood planks, he fell through an opening in a latticework rebar deck to a plywood form that was 12 to 18 inches below. "There is no bright-line minimum height differential that determines whether an elevation hazard exists" (Auriemma v. Biltmore Theatre, LLC, 82 A.D.3d 1, 9, 917 N.Y.S.2d 130 [1st Dept.2011] ), and here, the record establishes that plaintiff's fall was the result of exposure to an elevation related hazard (see Arrasti v. HRH Constr. LLC, 60 A.D.3d 582, 876 N.Y.S.2d 373 [1st Dept.2009] ). We have considered defendants' remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

MAZZARELLI, J.P., RENWICK, MOSKOWITZ, KAPNICK, KAHN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Brown v. 44 Street Development, LLC

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Mar 31, 2016
137 A.D.3d 703 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)

In Brown, as mentioned, the plaintiff was awarded summary judgment when his foot fell into a hole in the rebar, 12-18 inches deep, while he was walking across said rebar.

Summary of this case from McCoy v. 43-25 Hunter L.L.C.

In Brown, testimony from a qualified expert—as well as common sense—dictated that there was no reasonable argument for requiring a worker to walk across a "steel tightrope" rather than laying down planking.

Summary of this case from McCoy v. 43-25 Hunter L.L.C.

In Brown, the plaintiff—a carpenter whose work did not involve anything related to a rebar floor—was carrying 14-foot pieces of lumber and, in order to get to his work area, was "walking on top of the rebar because there was nothing else to walk on; there were no planks or anything else laid down to walk on."

Summary of this case from McCoy v. 43-25 Hunter L.L.C.
Case details for

Brown v. 44 Street Development, LLC

Case Details

Full title:Donald BROWN, et al., Plaintiffs–Respondents, v. 44 STREET DEVELOPMENT…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: Mar 31, 2016

Citations

137 A.D.3d 703 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 2527
27 N.Y.S.3d 380

Citing Cases

McCoy v. 43-25 Hunter L.L.C.

"There is no bright-line minimum height differential that determines whether an elevation hazard exists."…

Carrion v. LSG 365 Bond St. LLC

In reply, plaintiff adheres to his original position. Moreover, he claims that Brown v. 44 St. Development,…