Gonzalez v. Amcc Corp..

• Decision Date: 25 October 2011
• Citation: 88 A.D.3d 945,2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 07602,931 N.Y.S.2d 415
• Parties: Leonardo GONZALEZ, respondent,v.AMCC CORP., et al., appellants, et al., defendants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

88 A.D.3d 945
931 N.Y.S.2d 415
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 07602

Leonardo GONZALEZ, respondent,
v.
AMCC CORP., et al., appellants, et al., defendants.

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

Oct. 25, 2011.

[931 N.Y.S.2d 415]

Armienti, DeBellis, Guglielmo & Rhoden, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Vanessa M. Corchia and Karen S. Drotzer of counsel), for appellants.Gorayeb & Associates, P.C., New York, N.Y. (John M. Shaw of counsel), for respondent.DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO, J.P., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, LEONARD B. AUSTIN, and SHERI S. ROMAN, JJ.

[88 A.D.3d 945] In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants AMCC Corp. and New York City School Construction Authority appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme [88 A.D.3d 946] Court, Queens

[931 N.Y.S.2d 416]

County (Kerrigan, J.), dated September 30, 2010, as denied that branch of their motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action alleging violations of Labor Law § 240(1) insofar as asserted against them and granted that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the cause of action alleging violations of Labor Law § 240(1) insofar as asserted against them.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff established his prima face entitlement to summary judgment on the issue of liability on his Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action insofar as asserted against the defendants AMCC Corp. and New York City School Construction Authority (hereinafter together the appellants). The plaintiff, while in the course of his employment as an apprentice electrician, was standing on an unsecured A-frame ladder when the ladder shifted, causing him to fall ( see Mingo v. Lebedowicz, 57 A.D.3d 491, 869 N.Y.S.2d 163; Ricciardi v. Bernard Janowitz Constr. Corp., 49 A.D.3d 624, 853 N.Y.S.2d 373; Rivera v. Dafna Constr. Co., Ltd., 27 A.D.3d 545, 813 N.Y.S.2d 109; Schuler v. Kings Plaza Shopping Ctr. & Mar., 294 A.D.2d 556, 743 N.Y.S.2d 141; Mannes v. Kamber Mgt., 284 A.D.2d 310, 726 N.Y.S.2d 440). No safety devices were provided that might have prevented the accident ( see Rivera v. Dafna Constr. Co., Ltd., 27 A.D.3d 545, 813 N.Y.S.2d 109). The fact that the ladder may have had a brace in the middle to keep it open was immaterial, as the ladder was not secured to something stable and was not chocked or wedged in place ( see Wasilewski v. Museum of Modern Art, 260 A.D.2d 271, 688 N.Y.S.2d 547).

...