Opinion
834 CA 18–01682
09-27-2019
Donald J. PHEARSDORF and Danielle Phearsdorf, Claimants-Respondents, v. STATE of New York, Defendant–Appellant. (Claim No. 121775.)
RUPP BAASE PFALZGRAF CUNNINGHAM LLC, ROCHESTER (MATTHEW C. LENAHAN OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–APPELLANT. BRIAN CHAPIN YORK, JAMESTOWN, FOR CLAIMANTS–RESPONDENTS.
RUPP BAASE PFALZGRAF CUNNINGHAM LLC, ROCHESTER (MATTHEW C. LENAHAN OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–APPELLANT.
BRIAN CHAPIN YORK, JAMESTOWN, FOR CLAIMANTS–RESPONDENTS.
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, CARNI, TROUTMAN, AND WINSLOW, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from an interlocutory judgment, entered following a nonjury trial, in favor of claimants on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240(1). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to sustain the judgment and giving due deference to the determinations of the Court of Claims regarding witness credibility (see generally Matter of City of Syracuse Indus. Dev. Agency [Alterm, Inc.] , 20 A.D.3d 168, 170, 796 N.Y.S.2d 503 [4th Dept. 2005] ), we conclude that, contrary to defendant's contention, there is a fair interpretation of the evidence supporting the court's determination that claimant Donald J. Phearsdorf was not furnished with the requisite safety devices and that the absence of adequate safety devices was a proximate cause of his injuries (see generally Floyd v New York State Thruway Auth. , 125 A.D.3d 1456, 1458, 3 N.Y.S.3d 835 [4th Dept. 2015] ). We have reviewed defendant's remaining contentions and conclude that none warrants reversal or modification of the judgment.