Barrios v. 19-19 24th Ave. Co.

• Decision Date: 13 February 2019
• Docket Number: 2016–07878,Index No. 6544/13
• Citation: 169 A.D.3d 747,93 N.Y.S.3d 428
• Parties: Sergio BARRIOS, Appellant-Respondent, v. 19–19 24TH AVENUE COMPANY, LLC, et al., Respondents-Appellants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

169 A.D.3d 747
93 N.Y.S.3d 428

Sergio BARRIOS, Appellant-Respondent,
v.
19–19 24TH AVENUE COMPANY, LLC, et al., Respondents-Appellants.

2016–07878
Index No. 6544/13

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Submitted - November 8, 2018
February 13, 2019

93 N.Y.S.3d 429

Gorayeb & Associates, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Mark H. Edwards of counsel), for appellant-respondent.

Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP, New York, N.Y. (Jeremy M. Buchalski of counsel), for respondents-appellants.

REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., RUTH C. BALKIN, JOSEPH J. MALTESE, BETSY BARROS, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

169 A.D.3d 747

In an action to recover damages for personal injures, the defendants appeal, and the plaintiff cross-appeals, from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Edgar G. Walker, J.), dated June 17, 2016. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The order, insofar as cross-appealed from, denied the plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

ORDERED that the order is modified, on the law, (1) by deleting the provision thereof denying that branch of the plaintiff's cross motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240(1), and substituting therefor a provision granting

169 A.D.3d 748

that branch of the plaintiff's cross motion, and (2) by deleting the provision thereof denying that branch of the defendants' motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 241(6), and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the defendants' motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The plaintiff alleges that he was injured in the course of his employment when a differential block and chain fell onto his head as he and his coworkers were preparing a hoisting apparatus to remove and replace a...