Opinion
5594 Index 153101/12
02-01-2018
Andrew FRASER, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants–Appellants.
Cozen O'Connor, New York (Edward Hayum of counsel), for appellants. Sacks and Sacks, LLP, New York (Scott N. Singer of counsel), for respondent.
Cozen O'Connor, New York (Edward Hayum of counsel), for appellants.
Sacks and Sacks, LLP, New York (Scott N. Singer of counsel), for respondent.
Sweeny, J.P., Manzanet–Daniels, Webber, Kahn, Moulton, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert D. Kalish, J.), entered December 9, 2016, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The record does not support defendants' argument that plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of the accident or was a recalcitrant worker since a proximate cause of his accident was the failure of the chain fall to adequately support the load that spun down and struck him, knocking him from the beam on which he was working to the ground below (see Berrios v. 735 Ave. of the Ams., LLC, 82 A.D.3d 552, 553, 919 N.Y.S.2d 16 [1st Dept. 2011] ; Ray v. City of New York, 62 A.D.3d 591, 880 N.Y.S.2d 37 [1st Dept. 2009] ).