Saaverda v. East Fordham Road Real Estate Corp.
| Citation | 649 N.Y.S.2d 416,233 A.D.2d 125 |
| Parties | Sergio SAAVERDA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EAST FORDHAM ROAD REAL ESTATE CORP., et al., Defendants-Respondents. . |
| Decision Date | 07 November 1996 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Scott N. Singer, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Wendy Salman Herlands, Kathleen D. Foley, Elizabeth Anne Bannon, for Defendants-Respondents.
Before WALLACH, J.P., and RUBIN, NARDELLI, WILLIAMS and ANDRIAS, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), entered on or about October 5, 1995, which denied plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment and granted the cross motions of defendants E.A. Fordham Corp. and Ambrosio Construction Co. Inc. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
In an action under Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1) and 241 and the common law to recover damages for personal injury arising from plaintiff's fall from a ladder, the IAS court properly denied plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment since his deposition testimony concerning the manner in which the accident occurred is inconsistent with his own account provided in support of the motion (compare, Xirakis v. 1115 Fifth Ave. Corp., 226 A.D.2d 452, 641 N.Y.S.2d 45, with Klein v. City of New York, 222 A.D.2d 351, 635 N.Y.S.2d 634, appeal withdrawn 88 N.Y.2d 843, 644 N.Y.S.2d 689, 667 N.E.2d 339). Significantly, there is conflicting evidence as to whether there was a break or collapse in the ladder to establish a prima facie violation of Labor Law § 240(1) (see, Antunes v. 950 Park Ave. Corp., 149 A.D.2d 332, 539 N.Y.S.2d 909). Nor is there any showing that the lack of safety devices constitutes a violation of Labor Law § 240(1), or that such a violation proximately caused the accident (see, Zeitner v. Herbmax Sharon Assocs., 194 A.D.2d 414, 599 N.Y.S.2d 234).
The cross motions for summary judgment by defendants were properly granted. Defendant E.A. Fordham was an out-of-possession lessee of the property who neither contracted for nor supervised the work that brought about the injury, and had no authority to exercise any control over the specific work area that gave rise to plaintiff's injuries (see, Santos v. American Museum of Natural History, 187 A.D.2d 420, 589 N.Y.S.2d 520). Similarly, defendant Ambrosio Construction, whose contract with the owner was limited to demolition and construction of two walls, had no right...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re World Trade Center Disaster Site Litigation
...liable under section 241(6) where it neither contracted for nor supervised the work) (citing Saaverda v. East Fordham Rd. Real Estate Corp., 233 A.D.2d 125, 649 N.Y.S.2d 416, 417 (N.Y.App.Div.1996) (affirming grant of out-of-possession lessee's motion for summary judgment on basis that less......
-
Nascimento v. Bridgehampton Constr. Corp..
...creating a need for cross-examination and justifying a challenge to his credibility ( see Saaverda v. East Fordham Rd. Real Estate Corp., 233 A.D.2d 125, 649 N.Y.S.2d 416 [1996]; Colazo v. Tower Assoc., 209 A.D.2d 339, 619 N.Y.S.2d 547 [1994]; Wilson v. Haagen–Dazs Co., 215 A.D.2d 338, 627 ......
-
Bonaerge v. Leighton House Condo.
...omitted] ). As an alternative 134 A.D.3d 649holding, we reject it on the merits (see Saaverda v. East Fordham Rd. Real Estate Corp., 233 A.D.2d 125, 126, 649 N.Y.S.2d 416 [1st Dept.1996] ; see generally Russin v. Louis N. Picciano & Son, 54 N.Y.2d 311, 318, 445 N.Y.S.2d 127, 429 N.E.2d 805 ......
-
Samuel v. General Cinema Theaters, Inc.
...284, 670 N.Y.S.2d 79, with Eitner v. 119 W. 71st St. Owners Corp., 253 A.D.2d 641, 677 N.Y.S.2d 555, and Saaverda v. East Fordham Rd. Real Estate Corp., 233 A.D.2d 125, 649 N.Y.S.2d 416). Concerning the third-party action, the deposition testimony of third-party plaintiff's principal and th......