Opinion
3327 123068
03-07-2017
Seth Martin, Claim No. Claimant-Respondent, v. The State of New York, Respondent-Appellant.
Cartafalsa, Slattery, Turpin & Lenoff, New York (Michael Lenoff of counsel), for appellant. Sacks and Sacks LLP, New York (Scott N. Singer of counsel), for respondent.
Cartafalsa, Slattery, Turpin & Lenoff, New York (Michael Lenoff of counsel), for appellant.
Sacks and Sacks LLP, New York (Scott N. Singer of counsel), for respondent.
Order, Court of Claims of the State of New York (David A. Weinstein, J.), entered June 16, 2016, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied the branch of respondent State of New York's motion for summary judgment that sought dismissal of claimant's Labor Law § 241(6) claims predicated on violations of Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) §§ 23-2.3(c), 23-8.2(c)(3) and 23-8.1(f)(2)(i), unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The Court of Claims correctly decided that an issue of fact exists concerning whether the State provided tag lines for claimant's use in moving the steel I-beam across the Alexander Hamilton Bridge and whether the absence of tag lines was a proximate cause of claimant's injury (see Rizzuto v L.A. Wenger Contr. Co. , 91 NY2d 343, 350 [1998]).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: MARCH 7, 2017
CLERK