Schuler v. Kings Plaza Shopping Center and Marina, Inc.
| Decision Date | 28 May 2002 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
| Parties | MICHAEL SCHULER et al., Respondents,<BR>v.<BR>KINGS PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER AND MARINA, INC., et al., Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellants.<BR>DON BURNS, Doing Business as BURNS MECHANICAL, et al., Third-Party Defendants-Respondents, et al., Third-Party Defendants. |
Ordered that one bill of costs is payable to the defendants third-party plaintiffs.
The plaintiff Michael Schuler sustained personal injuries as the result of a fall from an inadequately secured 10-foot wooden A-frame ladder. The injury occurred while he was removing old piping at a store owned by the appellant Structure, Inc., as part of an air conditioning installation project. The store was located in a shopping mall owned by the appellant Kings Plaza Shopping Center and Marina, Inc. The ladder had been provided by the injured plaintiff's employer and was next to a pile of debris which had been excavated from a concrete hole in the floor. The plaintiffs commenced this action against the appellants, alleging causes of action to recover damages for negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and § 241 (6). The appellants commenced a third-party action against, among others, the injured plaintiff's employer, the third-party defendant Don Burns, doing business as Burns Mechanical (hereinafter Burns), for contribution and indemnification.
The plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on their cause of action to recover damages for violation of Labor Law § 240 (1), and the appellants cross-moved, inter alia, for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action to recover damages for negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) insofar as asserted against them, and for summary judgment on their third-party cause of action granting them indemnification from the third-party defendants. The Supreme Court granted the plaintiffs' motion and denied those branches of the appellants' cross motion.
The Supreme Court properly granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs on their Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action since the evidence established that the injured plaintiff fell from an unsecured ladder, which was the proximate cause of his injuries (see Gordon v Eastern Ry. Supply, 82 NY2d 555; Lacey v Turner Constr. Co., 275 AD2d 734).
However, the Supreme Court erred in denying summary judgment to the appellants dismissing the negligence and Labor Law § 200 causes of action insofar as asserted against them since they did not exercise any control over the manner or method of the injured plaintiff's work, and did not have notice of any alleged defective condition (see Kanarvogel v Tops Appliance City, 271 AD2d 409; Sprague v Peckham Materials Corp., 240 AD2d 392).
The Supreme Court also erred in failing to grant summary judgment to the appellants dismissing the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action insofar as asserted against them since the plaintiffs did not allege any specific violation of the Industrial Code (see Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 NY2d 494; Somerville v Usdan, 255 AD2d 500; Rojas v County of Nassau, 210 AD2d 390). However, the appellants' contention that the injured plaintiff's preexisting medical condition was the sole proximate cause of his injury was speculative and insufficient to defeat the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on that issue (see Fresse v City of New York, 238 AD2d 374; Bras v Atlas Constr. Corp., 166 AD2d 401).
While the Supreme Court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McLean v. 405 Webster Ave. Assocs.
...at 709, 835 N.Y.S.2d 705). ( See Rubeis v. Aqua Club, Inc., 3 N.Y.3d 408, 412–413 [2004];Schuler v. Kings Plaza Shopping Center and Marina, Inc., 294 A.D.2d 556, 559, 743 N.Y.S.2d 141 [2d Dept 2002] ). Original, in the instant action, fails to meet this prima facie burden. Its motion papers......
-
Rizvani v. N.Y.C. Hous. Auth.
...Law §11, and the Plaintiff in this matter did not allege that he sustained a "grave injury." See Schuler v. Kings Plaza Shopping Ctr., 294 A.D.2d 556, 743 N.Y.S.2d 141 [2nd Dept 2002] and Keating v. Nanuet Bd. Of Educ., 40 A.D.3d 706, 835 N.Y.S.2d 705 [2nd Dept 2007]. However, NYCHA is corr......
-
Solorio v. Asplundh Tree Expert Co.
...where plaintiff could still perform "simple tasks" and engage in day-to-day functions); Schuler v. Kings Plaza Shopping Center & Marina, Inc., 294 A.D.2d 556, 743 N.Y.S.2d 141, 143-44 (2nd Dept.2002) (finding no "grave injury" because physician's report indicated plaintiff "managed a `limit......
-
Gonzalez v. Amcc Corp..
...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 a......