Pacheco v. Halsted Commc'ns, Ltd.

• Decision Date: 09 November 2016
• Parties: German C. PACHECO, respondent, v. HALSTED COMMUNICATIONS, LTD., appellant, et al., defendants (and two third-party actions).
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

144 A.D.3d 768
40 N.Y.S.3d 568
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 07303

German C. PACHECO, respondent,
v.
HALSTED COMMUNICATIONS, LTD., appellant, et al., defendants

(and two third-party actions).

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

Nov. 9, 2016.

40 N.Y.S.3d 569

Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, New York, NY (Richard Imbrogno of counsel), for appellant.

The Perecman Firm, PLLC, New York, NY (David H. Perecman and Peter D. Rigelhaupt of counsel), for respondent.

JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, J.P., JOSEPH J. MALTESE, HECTOR D. LaSALLE, and VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.

144 A.D.3d 768

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Halsted Communications, Ltd., appeals, as limited by its brief, from (1) so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (McDonald, J.), entered September 21, 2012, as granted 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) insofar as asserted against it, and (2) so much of an order of the same court entered January 27, 2014, as denied that branch of its motion which was for leave to renew its opposition to that branch of the plaintiff's prior 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) insofar as asserted against it.

ORDERED that the orders are affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

The plaintiff allegedly was injured when he fell while descending a 28–foot ladder after installing equipment on the roof of a single-family home. The plaintiff commenced this action against the owners of the home and two subcontractors, Halsted Communications, Ltd. (hereinafter Halsted), and MobilPro Installation Services, LLC, alleging, inter alia, a violation of Labor Law § 240(1). Halsted moved, among other things, for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action insofar as asserted against it, and the plaintiff cross-moved, inter alia, for summary judgment on the issue of liability on that cause of action insofar as asserted against Halsted. The plaintiff argued that Halsted violated Labor Law § 240(1) by failing to provide him with proper protection for the job, namely, a 40–foot extension ladder. In an order entered September 21, 2012, the Supreme Court denied that branch of Halsted's motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action insofar as asserted against it, and granted that branch of the plaintiff's cross motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability on that cause of action insofar as asserted against Halsted.

40 N.Y.S.3d 570

...