Opinion
August 4, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.).
Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, with costs, and that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1) is denied without prejudice to renewal upon the completion of discovery.
Under the circumstances of this case, the award of summary judgment to the plaintiff on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) was premature. The plaintiff testified at his deposition that although he had locked the wheels of his rolling scaffold, the structure inexplicably "moved" as he was reaching up to remove asbestos from the ceiling, and that this movement caused him to fall backwards off the scaffold, which was unequipped with guardrails or other safety devices. Although a plaintiff's account of how his accident happened may suffice to justify an award to him of summary judgment ( see, e.g., Casabianca v. Port Auth., 237 A.D.2d 1112; Rodriguez v. Forest City Jay St. Assocs., 234 A.D.2d 68; Anderson v. International House, 222 A.D.2d 237; Rodriguez v. New York City Hous. Auth., 194 A.D.2d 460), where, as here, a jury could draw conflicting inferences from the evidence ( see, Ampolini v. Long Is. Light. Co., 186 A.D.2d 772, 773), and, indeed, where the plaintiff's account is contrary to experience, summary judgment should at least await the completion of discovery ( see, e.g., Groves v. Land's End Hous. Co., 80 N.Y.2d 978; Pastoriza v. State of New York, 108 A.D.2d 605, 607).
Thompson, J.P., Pizzuto, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.