Opinion
2013-04-10
Exequiel PAGANINI, respondent, v. CONGREGATION ERETZ H'CHAIM, appellant.
Cascone & Kluepfel, LLP, Garden City, N.Y. (Ajay C. Bhavnani of counsel), for appellant. Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman, P.C., Chestnut Ridge, N.Y. (Michael L. Braunstein of counsel), for respondent.
Cascone & Kluepfel, LLP, Garden City, N.Y. (Ajay C. Bhavnani of counsel), for appellant. Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman, P.C., Chestnut Ridge, N.Y. (Michael L. Braunstein of counsel), for respondent.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., REINALDO E. RIVERA, CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, and ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schmidt, J.), dated March 16, 2012, as denied those branches of its cross motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) and granted the plaintiff's motion 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.
The defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that it is entitled to the homeowners' exemption under Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) ( see Lenda v. Breeze Concrete Corp., 73 A.D.3d 987, 989, 903 N.Y.S.2d 417).
The plaintiff established, prima facie, that the defendant violated Labor Law § 240(1) when it provided him with a wet, unsecured ladder lacking rubber feet, and that the violation proximately caused the ladder to shift and the plaintiff to fall to the ground ( see Kaminski v. 22–61 42nd St., LLC, 91 A.D.3d 606, 935 N.Y.S.2d 903;Melchor v. Singh, 90 A.D.3d 866, 867–868, 935 N.Y.S.2d 106). The plaintiff further established, prima facie, that the defendant is not entitled to the protection of the homeowners' exemption under Labor Law § 240(1) ( see DeSabato v. 674 Carroll St. Corp., 55 A.D.3d 656, 659, 868 N.Y.S.2d 209;Morelock v. Danbrod Realty Corp., 203 A.D.2d 733, 610 N.Y.S.2d 657). In opposition, the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied those branches of the defendant's cross motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) pursuant to the homeowners' exemption, and properly granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240(1).