Opinion
2013-11-6
Robert MURPHY, respondent, v. TAHOE DEVELOPMENT CORP., et al., appellants (and a third-party action).
Milber Makris Plousadis & Seiden, LLP, White Plains, N.Y. (David C. Zegarelli of counsel), for appellants. Joseph T. Mullen, Jr. & Associates (Joshua Annenberg and Steven Hoffman, New York, N.Y., of counsel), for respondent.
Milber Makris Plousadis & Seiden, LLP, White Plains, N.Y. (David C. Zegarelli of counsel), for appellants. Joseph T. Mullen, Jr. & Associates (Joshua Annenberg and Steven Hoffman, New York, N.Y., of counsel), for respondent.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO, JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, and CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, JJ.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal, as limited by their notice of appeal and brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Siegel, J.), dated June 28, 2012, as granted that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240(1).
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
To prevail on a cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240(1), a plaintiff must establish that the statute was violated, and that the violation was a proximate cause of his or her injuries ( see Blake v. Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of N.Y. City, 1 N.Y.3d 280, 287, 771 N.Y.S.2d 484, 803 N.E.2d 757). Here, the plaintiff established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that he was injured when one of the rungs of the wooden A-frame ladder he was using broke, causing him to fall to the ground ( see Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851, 853, 487 N.Y.S.2d 316, 476 N.E.2d 642;Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562, 427 N.Y.S.2d 595, 404 N.E.2d 718).
In opposition, the defendants failed to submit evidence in admissible form sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff's actions were the sole proximate cause of his injuries ( see Gallagher v. New York Post, 14 N.Y.3d 83, 896 N.Y.S.2d 732, 923 N.E.2d 1120;Chabla v. 72 Greenpoint, LLC, 101 A.D.3d 928, 957 N.Y.S.2d 226;see also Friends of Animals v. Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 N.Y.2d 1065, 1068, 416 N.Y.S.2d 790, 390 N.E.2d 298). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240(1) ( see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 324, 508 N.Y.S.2d 923, 501 N.E.2d 572;Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d at 562, 427 N.Y.S.2d 595, 404 N.E.2d 718).