Opinion
2021-04087 Index 28531/17
06-24-2021
Michael McVicker, Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, et al., Defendants-Respondents-Appellants Appeal No. 14128 No. 2020-02696
Sacks and Sacks L.L.P., New York (Scott N. Singer of counsel), for appellant-respondent. Fabiani Cohen & Hall, LLP, New York (Allison A. Snyder of counsel), for respondents-appellants.
Sacks and Sacks L.L.P., New York (Scott N. Singer of counsel), for appellant-respondent.
Fabiani Cohen & Hall, LLP, New York (Allison A. Snyder of counsel), for respondents-appellants.
Before: Gische, J.P., Webber, Oing, González, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Donna M. Mills, J.), entered, which denied plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240(1) claim and denied defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) claims, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant plaintiff's motion, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.
The record demonstrates conclusively that Labor Law § 240(1) was violated and that the violation was the proximate cause of plaintiff's injuries. Upon completing the assembly of a cylindrical rebar column weighing approximately 1, 000 pounds, plaintiff's fellow ironworkers pushed the column down a ramp from its resting position atop two sawhorses to the ground below. Plaintiff was struck by the heavy rolling column when he inadvertently walked into its path. The evidence established that the column that hit plaintiff constituted a "load that required securing," and that no appropriate safeguard, such as a hoisting device, barrier, or exclusion zone, was utilized (see Mora v Sky Lift Distrib. Corp., 126 A.D.3d 593, 594-595 [1st Dept 2015]; Albuquerque v City of New York, 188 A.D.3d 515 [1st Dept 2020]).
In view of the foregoing, defendants' arguments in support of dismissing the Labor Law § 241(6) claim are academic.