From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kaminski v. 22-61 42nd Street, LLC

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Jan 10, 2012
91 A.D.3d 606 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)

Opinion

2012-01-10

Jozef KAMINSKI, respondent, v. 22–61 42ND STREET, LLC, appellant.

Burns, Russo, Tamigi & Reardon, LLP, Garden City, N.Y. (John T. Pieret of counsel), for appellant. Block O'Toole & Murphy, New York, N.Y. (Frederick C. Aranki of counsel), for respondent.


Burns, Russo, Tamigi & Reardon, LLP, Garden City, N.Y. (John T. Pieret of counsel), for appellant. Block O'Toole & Murphy, New York, N.Y. (Frederick C. Aranki of counsel), for respondent.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Weiss, J.), dated May 6, 2011, which granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the cause of action pursuant to Labor Law § 240(1).

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff allegedly was injured while repairing stucco on a building in Queens. He commenced this action against the owner of the building, asserting, among other things, a cause of action pursuant to Labor Law § 240(1). After discovery was completed, the plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability on that cause of action. The plaintiff made a prima facie showing of his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence that the defendant hired Denton Stoneworks (hereinafter Denton) to repair stucco, that Denton, in turn, engaged the plaintiff to perform the work at an hourly rate, and that during the course of the work, he allegedly was injured when an inadequately secured ladder that he was descending slipped or moved, causing him to fall ( see Raynor v. Quality Plaza Realty, LLC, 84 A.D.3d 774, 774–775, 922 N.Y.S.2d 791; Herrera v. Union Mech. of N.Y. Corp., 80 A.D.3d 564, 565, 914 N.Y.S.2d 295). Contrary to the defendant's contention, in opposing the motion, the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff was an employee within the meaning of Labor Law § 240(1) ( see Singh v. City of New York, 68 A.D.3d 1095, 1096, 892 N.Y.S.2d 148).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the cause of action pursuant to Labor Law § 240(1).

MASTRO, A.P.J., BALKIN, DICKERSON and CHAMBERS, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Kaminski v. 22-61 42nd Street, LLC

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Jan 10, 2012
91 A.D.3d 606 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
Case details for

Kaminski v. 22-61 42nd Street, LLC

Case Details

Full title:Jozef KAMINSKI, respondent, v. 22–61 42ND STREET, LLC, appellant.

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

Date published: Jan 10, 2012

Citations

91 A.D.3d 606 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
935 N.Y.S.2d 903
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 185

Citing Cases

Tront v. The City of New York

Canas v. Harbour at Blue PointHome Owners Assoc., Inc., 99 A.D.3d 962, 953 N.Y.S.2d 150, (2d Dept. 2012);…

Paredes v. 1668 Realty Associates

The plaintiff's evidence further established, prima facie, that, on August 22, 2005, while performing work at…