Opinion
May 5, 1997
Appeal from Court of Claims (Silverman, J.).
Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the claimants' motion is granted, and the matter is remitted to the Court of Claims for further proceedings.
The claimant, a painter, was engaged in painting a roadway overpass from the top of a work truck when the safety guardrail onto which he was holding for balance gave way causing him to fall to the roadway and sustain injuries. That portion of the guardrail onto which the claimant was holding fell to the ground along with him.
In order to prevail on a Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, the claimant must show that the statute was violated and that this violation was a proximate cause of the claimant's injuries ( see, Skalko v. Marshall's, Inc., 229 A.D.2d 569; Bland v. Manocherian, 66 N.Y.2d 452; Anderson v. Schul/Mar Constr. Corp., 212 A.D.2d 493).
Here, the claimant demonstrated that the safety device provided collapsed, thereby contributing to his fall and resulting injuries. Consequently, the claimant made a prima facie showing that the statute was violated and that said violation was a proximate cause of his injuries, thereby establishing entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability ( see, Gordon v. Eastern Ry. Supply Co., 82 N.Y.2d 555; Place v. Grand Union Co., 184 A.D.2d 817; La Lima v. Epstein, 143 A.D.2d 886; Braun v. Dormitory Auth., 118 A.D.2d 614). Further, although the defendant contends that the claimant was contributorily negligent, contributory negligence is not a defense to a violation of Labor Law § 240(1) ( see, Zimmer v Chemung County Performing Arts, 65 N.Y.2d 513, 521, rearg denied 65 N.Y.2d 1054; La Lima v. Epstein, supra, at 888, citing Hauff v. CLXXXII Via Magna Corp., 118 A.D.2d 485, 486).
Santucci, J.P., Joy, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.