Opinion
2014-06-10
Gregory KURAS, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. CORNELL UNIVERSITY, et al., Defendants–Respondents.
Hogan & Cassell, LLP, Jericho (Michael D. Cassell of counsel), for appellant. Mauro Lilling Naparty LLP, Woodbury (Anthony F. DeStefano of counsel), for respondents.
Hogan & Cassell, LLP, Jericho (Michael D. Cassell of counsel), for appellant. Mauro Lilling Naparty LLP, Woodbury (Anthony F. DeStefano of counsel), for respondents.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul Wooten, J.), entered January 30, 2014, which denied plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted.
Plaintiff established his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law through his testimony that, while attempting to descend from the third to the second rung of an unsecured wooden A–frame ladder, the ladder (which had worn legs and no rubber tips) suddenly slipped and collapsed, causing him to fall and sustain injuries ( see Goreczny v. 16 Ct. St. Owner LLC, 110 A.D.3d 465, 973 N.Y.S.2d 54 [1st Dept.2013];Fanning v. Rockefeller Univ., 106 A.D.3d 484, 964 N.Y.S.2d 525 [1st Dept.2013] ).
In opposition, defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact. There is no support for defendants' argument that the record contains inconsistent accounts as to how the accident occurred ( see e.g. Marrero v.2075 Holding Co. LLC, 106 A.D.3d 408, 964 N.Y.S.2d 144 [1st Dept.2013] ). There is no evidence that plaintiff fell simply because he lost his balance ( see e.g. Carchipulla v. 6661 Broadway Partners, LLC, 95 A.D.3d 573, 945 N.Y.S.2d 4 [1st Dept.2012] ), and regardless of whether a lift and another ladder were available at the job site, “there was no showing that plaintiff was expected, or instructed, to use those [devices] and for no good reason chose not to do so” ( Dwyer at 884). TOM, J.P., FRIEDMAN, GISCHE, CLARK, JJ., concur.