Opinion
13129 Index No. 154907/16 Case No. 2020-02764
02-16-2021
Karnail SINGH, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant, The New York City Housing Authority et al., Defendants–Appellants. [And other Third-Party Actions]
Salter & Ingrao, P.C., Mineola (Terrance J. Ingrao of counsel), for The New York City Housing Authority, appellant. Bartlett LLP, Garden City (David C. Zegarelli of counsel) for AFG Group Inc., and AFG Construction Management, appellants. Munawar & Hashmat, LLP, New York (Casey Fundaro of counsel), for respondent.
Salter & Ingrao, P.C., Mineola (Terrance J. Ingrao of counsel), for The New York City Housing Authority, appellant.
Bartlett LLP, Garden City (David C. Zegarelli of counsel) for AFG Group Inc., and AFG Construction Management, appellants.
Munawar & Hashmat, LLP, New York (Casey Fundaro of counsel), for respondent.
Gische, J.P., Moulton, Gonza´lez, Scarpulla, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alan C. Marin, J.), entered on or about September 17, 2019, which granted plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim as against defendant New York City Housing Authority (N.Y.CHA), unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff established prima facie that a violation of Labor Law § 240(1) by NYCHA was the proximate cause of the injuries he sustained when a portion of the sidewalk bridge on which he was standing while dismantling the scaffold collapsed (see Mora v. Wythe & Kent Realty LLC, 171 A.D.3d 426, 95 N.Y.S.3d 527 [1st Dept. 2019] ; Aburto v. City of New York, 94 A.D.3d 640, 942 N.Y.S.2d 514 [1st Dept. 2012] ; Kyle v. City of New York, 268 A.D.2d 192, 197–198, 707 N.Y.S.2d 445 [1st Dept. 2000], lv denied 97 N.Y.2d 608, 739 N.Y.S.2d 97, 765 N.E.2d 300 [2002] ). Plaintiff submitted the transcript of his General Municipal Law § 50–h hearing conducted by NYCHA and the Workers’ Compensation Board C–2 form, Employer's Report of Work–Related Injury/Illness, signed by his supervisor (see Aburto, 94 A.D.3d at 640, 942 N.Y.S.2d 514 ; Jimenez v. Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 124 A.D.3d 507, 3 N.Y.S.3d 1 [1st Dept. 2015] ; compare Taylor v. One Bryant Park, LLC, 94 A.D.3d 415, 941 N.Y.S.2d 142 [1st Dept. 2012] [the defendants failed to rebut the plaintiff's prima facie showing by submitting C–2 report, because report was not signed or authenticated, and it was not clear from the record who created it or where the information came from]).
Defendants failed to raise an issue of fact as to whether plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his injuries. Plaintiff testified that he was not wearing his safety harness because the lifeline, which he had used while working on the scaffold that he and his coworkers had dismantled, could not be used while working on the sidewalk bridge. Defendants neither submitted evidence nor identified discovery that would lead to evidence that the lifeline was still available and that it was possible to wear it on the sidewalk bridge while engaged in the work that plaintiff was performing. Defendants’ argument that plaintiff's testimony was internally inconsistent is academic, as NYCHA would be liable under Labor Law § 240(1) for any version of the accident based on any of the purported inconsistencies (see Romanczuk v. Metropolitan Ins. & Annuity Co., 72 A.D.3d 592, 899 N.Y.S.2d 228 [1st Dept. 2010] ). Nor was plaintiff's motion premature (see Jimenez, 124 A.D.3d at 508, 3 N.Y.S.3d 1 ; Aburto, 94 A.D.3d at 641, 942 N.Y.S.2d 514 ).