Opinion
7885 Index 155051/14
12-13-2018
John SLAWSKY, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. TURNER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, et al., Defendants–Appellants.
Wood Smith Henning & Berman LLP, New York (David H. Larkin of counsel), for appellants. Kazmierczuk & McGrath, Forest Hills (Katherine M. McGrath of counsel), for respondent.
Wood Smith Henning & Berman LLP, New York (David H. Larkin of counsel), for appellants.
Kazmierczuk & McGrath, Forest Hills (Katherine M. McGrath of counsel), for respondent.
Richter, J.P., Manzanet–Daniels, Tom, Webber, Gesmer, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Nancy M. Bannon, J.), entered October 23, 2017, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's claims pursuant to Labor Law § 240(1), unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The motion court correctly found that plaintiff adduced sufficient evidence that he was exposed to an elevation-related hazard supporting a claim pursuant to Labor Law § 240(1) (see Wilinski v. 334 E. 92nd Hous. Dev. Fund Corp., 18 N.Y.3d 1, 935 N.Y.S.2d 551, 959 N.E.2d 488 [2011] ; Bonaerge v. Leighton House Condominium, 134 A.D.3d 648, 22 N.Y.S.3d 52 [1st Dept. 2015] ; Harris v. City of New York, 83 A.D.3d 104, 110, 923 N.Y.S.2d 2 [1st Dept. 2011] ). That the glass partition may have only traveled a short distance does not warrant dismissal in light of the partition's weight of between 300 and 400 pounds (see Marrero v. 2075 Holding Co. LLC, 106 A.D.3d 408, 964 N.Y.S.2d 144 [1st Dept. 2013] ). Moreover, plaintiff adduced evidence that the lifting device provided had an insufficient maximum vertical lift load, and thus did not provide proper protection (see Harris, supra ).
We have considered defendants' remaining contentions and find them unavailing.