Casabianca v. Port Authority of N.Y. N.J

10 Citing cases

  1. Gonzalez v. 1251 Americas Associates

    262 A.D.2d 210 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)   Cited 4 times

    Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.). Defendant's liability under section 240 (1) was established as a matter of law by the uncontradicted evidence that plaintiff was injured when he fell from a moving scaffold that, while less than 20 feet high, lacked guardrails or other protective devices despite a foreseeable accumulation of water on its platform caused by the continuous spraying that was a necessary part of the asbestos removal work plaintiff was performing ( see, Garcia v. 1122 E. 180th St. Corp., 250 A.D.2d 550, 551, citing Casabianca v. Port Auth., 237 A.D.2d 112; Bland v. Manocherian, 66 N.Y.2d 452, 461). While plaintiff was not the sole witness to the accident, even if he were, "[t]he failure of any party to adduce a statement from plaintiff's co-workers is no reason for denying plaintiff summary judgment, absent a showing, other than mere speculation, that a bona fide issue exists as to plaintiff's credibility" ( Urrea v. Sedgwick Ave. Assocs., 191 A.D.2d 319, 320). Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Williams, Tom, Wallach and Andrias, JJ.

  2. Garcia v. 1122 East 180th Street Corp.

    250 A.D.2d 550 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)   Cited 22 times
    Holding that the provisions of § 240 apply regardless of plaintiff's negligence

    The verified fact that the scaffold fell over, and thus did not protect plaintiff from falling to a concrete floor from a substantial height, establishes that the owner failed to take necessary steps to comply with the nondelegable obligation under section 240 (1) to furnish necessary equipment "so constructed, placed and operated as to give proper protection" to the employee. Since the core objective of section 240 (1) was defeated, defendant is absolutely liable for plaintiff's injuries, and summary judgment on the issue of liability should have been granted, even though the accident itself was not witnessed (Casabianca v. Port Auth., 237 A.D.2d 112). Defendant argues that plaintiff was a "recalcitrant worker" (i.e., one who refuses to use available safety devices) when he failed to use the wheel locks properly.

  3. Gettys v. Port Authority of New York N.J

    248 A.D.2d 226 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)   Cited 15 times

    The engineer's description of the dimensions of the standard cinder block utilized in World Trade Center construction bears little on the actual elevation of this particular platform, except as to Port Authority's concession that four such blocks stacked one upon another would total a mere 32 inches. The difference between 2 feet 8 inches and 4 feet is not a material inconsistency creating an issue of fact on the question of liability, since even a platform elevated only 2 feet from the ground would be subject to the protection of the statute ( see, Casabianca v. Port Auth., 237 A.D.2d 112). Concur — Wallach, J. P., Rubin, Williams, Tom and Andrias, JJ.

  4. Neira-Bernal v. The City of New York

    2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 30997 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2023)

    "There is no bright-line minimum height differential that determines whether an elevation hazard exists" (Auriemma v Biltmore Theatre, LLC, 82 Ad3d 1, 9 [1st Dept 2011]). Further, courts have previously found falls from scaffolds from a height of three feet or less are within the ambit of the Labor Law's protections (see, e.g. Casabianca v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 237 A.D.2d 112, 113 [1st Dept 1997] [a "rolling scaffold elevated two feet off the ground did not meet the core objective of preventing injury from an elevation related risk and therefore the accident falls within the protection of [section 240 (1)] where plaintiff fell from the scaffold while installing ceiling tiles"]; Gramigna v Morse Diesel, Inc., 210 A.D.2d 115, 116 [1st Dept 1994] [Where the plaintiff fell two feet from the top of a scaffold to the "bicycle" below, the court held that "[t]he two-foot height differential between the two levels of the scaffolding . . . entail[s] an elevation risk"]). Second, the City Movants argue that they cannot be liable under section 240 (1) because SIG's contract, OSHA's rules and Skanska's health and safety plan only required fall protection at six feet or above.

  5. Toro v. Tishman Constr. Corp.

    2021 N.Y. Slip Op. 33898 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2021)

    Lastly, this court finds that Plaintiffs unwitnessed accident does not preclude summary judgment. Casabianca v. Port Auth., 237 A.D.2d 112, 655 N.Y.S.2d 2 (1st Dep't 1997). Therefore, this court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to judgment as to his Labor Law §240(1) claim regarding his June 2017 accident.

  6. Jakob v. 767 Fifth Partners

    2021 N.Y. Slip Op. 30308 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2021)

    First, defendants argue that plaintiff's accident was unwitnessed. However, that "plaintiff may have been the sole witness to the accident does not preclude the award of summary judgment in [his] favor" (Casabianca v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 237 AD2d 112, 113 [1st Dept 1997]; Campbell v 111 Chelsea Commerce, L.P., 80 AD3d 721, 722 [2d Dept 2011]). Rather, in such situations, to raise a question of fact, 767 Fifth and Petretti must call plaintiff's credibility into question (see Rodriguez v New York City Hous. Auth., 194 AD2d 460, 462 [1st Dept 1993] ["Where the injured worker's version of the accident is inconsistent with either his own previous account or that of another witness, a triable question of fact may be presented"]; Ellerbe v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 91 AD3d 441, 442 [1st Dept 2012] ["where credible evidence reveals differing versions of the accident, one under which defendants would be liable and another under which they would not, questions of fact exist making summary judgment inappropriate"])

  7. Telesco v. St. Nich 655 Realty LLC

    2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 32385 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2015)

    The fact that there were no other witnesses to plaintiff's accident does not alter this result. Verdon v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, 977 N.Y.S.2d 4 (1st Dept. 2013); Marrero v. 2075 Holding Co. LLC, 964 N.Y.S.2d 144 (1st Dept. 2013); Noble v. 260-61 Madison Avenue, 954 N.Y.S.2d 918 (1st Dept. 2012); Gambino v. William M. Crow Construction Co., 655 N.Y.S.2d 537 (1st Dept. 1997); Casablanca v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, 655 N.Y.S.2d 2 (1st Dept. 1997); Klein v. City of New York, 635 N.Y.S.2d 634 (1st Dept. 1995). Having granted plaintiff's motion based upon Labor Law 240(1), the Court declines to consider defendants' argument for summary judgment on plaintiff's Labor Law §§241(6) and 200, and common law negligence claims as the arguments are academic. See, Fanning v. Rockefeller University, 964 N.Y.S.2d 525 (1st Dept. 2013); Carchipulla v. 6661 Broadway Partners, LLC, 945 N.Y.S.2d 4 (1st Dept. 2012); Torino v. KLM Construction Co. Inc., 257 A.D.2d 541 (1st Dept.1999).

  8. Reyes v. Teresa Ortiz, Jason Ortiz, Teresa Ortiz & Jason Ortiz Inc.

    2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 32179 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2015)

    Defendant's contention that there are no known witnesses to plaintiff's accident is also without any merit. The fact that there were no other witnesses to plaintiff's accident does not alter this result. Verdon v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, 977 N.Y.S.2d 4 (1 Dept. 2013); Marrero v. 2075 Holding Co. LLC, 964 N.Y.S.2d 144 (1 Dept. 2013); Noble v. 260-61 Madison Avenue, 954 N.Y.S.2d 918 (1 Dept. 2012); Gambino v. William M. Crow Construction Co., 655 N.Y.S.2d 537 (1 Dept. 1997); Casabianca v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, 655 N.Y.S.2d 2 (1 Dept. 1997): Klein v. City of New York, 635 N.Y.S.2d 634 (1 Dept. 1995). Finally, defendants' contention that the deposition transcript submitted by plaintiff in support of his motion is inadmissible because it is unsigned is without merit. See, Franco v. Rolling Frito-Lay Sales, Ltd., 962 N.Y.S.2d 54 (1 Dept. 2013) (Plaintiff's unsigned deposition transcript was admissible where the transcript was certified by the reporter and plaintiff did not challenge its accuracy).

  9. Arrasti v. HRH Construction LLC

    2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 32933 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2008)   Cited 1 times

    It is well settled that the extent of a height differential is not determinative as to whether a particular hazard is elevation-related. (See Rocovich, 78 NY2d at 514-15; Megna, 306 AD2d at 164 [shortness of plaintiff's fall — sixteen inches according to defendant — "is irrelevant"]; Gettys v Port Auth. of New York and New Jersey, 248 AD2d 226 [1st Dept 1998]; Casabianca v Port Auth. of New York and New Jersey, 237 AD2d 112 [1st Dept 1997].) Plaintiff contends that the ramp was two to four feet above the floor.

  10. Ritzer v. 6 East 43rd Street, Corp.

    2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 33188 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2007)   Cited 1 times

    This testimony is sufficient to support plaintiffs claim that defendants failed to provide him with safety devices adequate to secure the scaffold or to protect him from an elevation-related hazard. (Sec Casabianca v Port Auth. of New York NJ, 237 AD2d 112 [1st Dept 1997] [fall from rolling scaffold elevated two feet off ground within protection of Labor Law § 240]; see also Orellano v 29 E. 37thSt. Realty Corp., 292 AD2d 289 [1st Dept 2002].)