Estrella v. Git Indus., Inc.

• Decision Date: 16 April 2013
• Citation: 963 N.Y.S.2d 110,2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 02518,105 A.D.3d 555
• Parties: Roman ESTRELLA, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. GIT INDUSTRIES, INC., et al., Defendants, Broadway 69, LLC, Defendant–Appellant, Broadway Women's Wear, Inc., et al., Defendants. Broadway 69, LLC, Third–Party Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Broadway Women's Wear, Inc., et al., Third–Party Defendants–Respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

105 A.D.3d 555

963 N.Y.S.2d 110

2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 02518

Roman ESTRELLA, Plaintiff–Respondent,

v.GIT INDUSTRIES, INC., et al., Defendants,Broadway 69, LLC, Defendant–Appellant,Broadway Women's Wear, Inc., et al., Defendants.

Broadway 69, LLC, Third–Party Plaintiff–Appellant,

v.Broadway Women's Wear, Inc., et al., Third–Party Defendants–Respondents.

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

April 16, 2013.

Lester Schwab Katz & Dwyer, LLP, New York (Harry Steinberg of counsel), for appellant.

Gorayeb & Associates, P.C., New York (John M. Shaw of counsel), for Roman Estrella, respondent.

MAZZARELLI, J.P., DeGRASSE, ABDUS–SALAAM, MANZANET–DANIELS, CLARK, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Robert E. Torres, J.), entered June 11, 2012, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability on his Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action, and denied defendant Broadway 69, LLC's (Broadway) motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 241(6) and § 200 and common-law negligence causes of action, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of dismissing the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims as against Broadway, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Partial summary judgment on the issue of liability on the Labor Law § 240(1) claim was properly granted in plaintiff's favor. The record shows that while performing repairs to a ceiling, plaintiff fell when the unsecured ladder on which he was working suddenly moved ( see Hamill v. Mutual of Am. Inv. Corp., 79 A.D.3d 478, 913 N.Y.S.2d 62 [1st Dept. 2010] ). Plaintiff was not required to show that the ladder was defective ( see Siegel v. RRG Fort Greene, Inc., 68 A.D.3d 675, 891 N.Y.S.2d 398 [1st Dept. 2009];Orellano v. 29 E. 37th St. Realty Corp., 292 A.D.2d 289, 290–291, 740 N.Y.S.2d 16 [1st Dept. 2002] ), and Broadway failed to raise a triable issue as to whether plaintiff's actions were the sole proximate cause of the accident.

The court properly denied Broadway's motion to the extent it sought dismissal of the Labor Law § 241(6) claim against it. 12 NYCRR 23–1.21(b)(4)(ii) requires all ladders to have firm footings, and is not limited to ladders that are at least 10–feet tall. Broadway's argument that plaintiff failed to show a violation of that provision is unavailing. Since Broadway failed to make an affirmative showing that the ladder complied with the firm-footing requirement, the sufficiency of plaintiff's opposition is irrelevant ( see Vega v. Restani Constr. Corp., 18 N.Y.3d 499, 503, 942 N.Y.S.2d 13, 965 N.E.2d 240 [2012] ). Moreover, even if Broadway had met its initial burden, plaintiff raised a triable issue as to whether the lack of rubber footings constituted a violation of the Industrial Code provision, causing him to fall ( see Soodin v. Fragakis, 91 A.D.3d 535, 937 N.Y.S.2d 187 [1st Dept. 2012] ).

Dismissal of the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims as against Broadway was proper in light of the lack of evidence that Broadway...