From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Goldbach v. Erie County Indus. Dev. Agency

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jul 7, 1988
142 A.D.2d 948 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

Opinion

July 7, 1988

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Erie County, Fudeman, J.

Present — Boomer, J.P., Green, Pine, Lawton and Davis, JJ.


Order unanimously reversed on the law with costs and plaintiffs' motion granted. Memorandum: Plaintiffs allege a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) and seek damages for injuries suffered by plaintiff Robert Goldbach who fell from a scaffold while installing electrical wires during construction of an addition to a building owned by defendant Erie County Industrial Development Agency (ECIDA). Special Term erred in denying plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Plaintiffs established a violation of the statute by showing that at the time of the injury Mr. Goldbach was performing installation work involving the danger of a fall from an elevated height (see, Brant v. Republic Steel Corp., 91 A.D.2d 841) and that ECIDA failed to provide Mr. Goldbach with proper safety devices to prevent such a fall (see, Zimmer v. Chemung County Performing Arts, 65 N.Y.2d 513, rearg denied 65 N.Y.2d 1054). The scaffold did not provide proper protection, as a matter of law, because it had no safety rails or other safety devices (see, Armstrong v. Sherill-Kenwood Water Dist., 135 A.D.2d 1081; Cartella v. Strong Museum, 135 A.D.2d 1089). The mere presence of scaffolding on the jobsite is insufficient to satisfy the statutory mandate (Heath v. Soloff Constr., 107 A.D.2d 507, 512). Moreover, there is no reasonable view of the evidence to support a finding that the absence of safety devices on the scaffold was not a proximate cause of Mr. Goldbach's injuries (see, Zimmer v Chemung County Performing Arts, supra). Thus, since defendant ECIDA has failed to offer evidentiary proof in admissible form that there are triable issues of fact, plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment as to liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) should have been granted.


Summaries of

Goldbach v. Erie County Indus. Dev. Agency

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jul 7, 1988
142 A.D.2d 948 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)
Case details for

Goldbach v. Erie County Indus. Dev. Agency

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT GOLDBACH et al., Appellants, v. ERIE COUNTY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT…

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

Date published: Jul 7, 1988

Citations

142 A.D.2d 948 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

Citing Cases

Smith v. Cassadaga Valley Central Sch. Dist

Defendant and third-party plaintiff Cassadaga Valley Central School District (Cassadaga) owns the property;…

Radka v. Miller Brewing, Inc.

Callahan, J.P., and Davis, J. (dissenting in part). This court has consistently held that absolute liability…