Vetrano v. J. Kokolakis Contracting, Inc.

• Decision Date: 28 November 2012
• Citation: 954 N.Y.S.2d 646,100 A.D.3d 984,2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 08113
• Parties: Joseph VETRANO, et al., appellants, v. J. KOKOLAKIS CONTRACTING, INC., defendant third-party plaintiff-respondent; Canatal Industries, Inc., third-party defendant, Derek K. Miller Enterprises, Inc., third-party defendant-respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

100 A.D.3d 984

954 N.Y.S.2d 646

2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 08113

Joseph VETRANO, et al., appellants,

v.J. KOKOLAKIS CONTRACTING, INC., defendantthird-party plaintiff-respondent;Canatal Industries, Inc., third-party defendant,Derek K. Miller Enterprises, Inc., third-party defendant-respondent.

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

Nov. 28, 2012.

Sacks and Sacks, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Scott N. Singer of counsel), for appellants.

Cascone & Kluepfel, LLP, Garden City, N.Y. (Michael T. Reagan of counsel), for defendantthird-partyplaintiff-respondent.

Faust Goetz Schenker & Blee, New York, N.Y. (Peter Kreymer of counsel), for third-party defendant-respondent.

RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P., SHERI S. ROMAN, SANDRA L. SGROI, and JEFFREY A. COHEN, JJ.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County(Cohalan, J.), dated June 1, 2011, which denied their motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240(1), and (2), as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the same court dated January 24, 2012, as, in effect, upon renewal, adhered to the determination in the order dated June 1, 2011, and denied their separate motion to sever the third-party action from the main action.

ORDERED that the appeal from the order dated June 1, 2011, is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the order dated January 24, 2012, in effect, made upon renewal; and it is further,

ORDERED that the order dated January 24, 2012, is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof, in effect, upon renewal, adhering to the determination in the order dated June 1, 2011, denying the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240(1), and substituting therefor a provision, upon renewal, vacating the order dated June 1, 2011, and thereupon granting that motion; as so modified, the order dated January 24, 2012, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, and it is further,

ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiffs.

Joseph Vetrano(hereinafter the injured plaintiff) sustained injuries when he fell approximately 12 to 13 feet from a steel beam while working as an ironworker at a construction site in Farmingdale.At the time of the accident, he was employed by the third-party defendantDerek K. Miller Enterprises, Inc.(hereinafter Miller).The injured plaintiff, and his wife suing derivatively, commenced this action against J. Kokolakis Contracting, Inc.(hereinafter Kokolakis), the general contractor for the project.In September 2009, Kokolakis commenced a third-party action against the third-party defendantCanatal Industries, Inc.(hereinafter Canatal), the subcontractor it hired to erect the steelwork, and Miller, to which Canatal subcontracted the work, but thereafter, by stipulation dated December 6, 2009, agreed to discontinue the third-party action.Subsequently, the plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability on their cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240(1).Kokolakis recommenced the third-party action against Canatal and Miller.By order dated June 1, 2011, the Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs' motion.The plaintiffs moved for leave to renew the motion and, separately, to sever the third-party action from the main action.By order dated January 24, 2012, the Supreme Court, in effect, granted that branch of the plaintiffs' motion which was for leave to renew and, upon renewal, adhered to its original determination.The Supreme Court also denied the plaintiffs' separate motion to sever the third-party action.

The plaintiffs demonstrated their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action.In order to prevail on a cause of action pursuant to Labor Law § 240(1), a plaintiff must establish that an owner or contractor failed to provide appropriate safety devices at an elevated work site and that such violation of the statute was the proximate cause of his or her injuries ( seeRamsey v. Leon D. DeMatteis Constr. Corp.,79 A.D.3d 720, 722, 912 N.Y.S.2d 654).Here, the injured plaintiff's deposition testimony established that he had not been provided with appropriate safety devices that could have prevented his fall and that the lack of such devices was the proximate cause of the accident.Specifically, in order to perform his assigned task to establish connections between steel beams, the injured plaintiff walked along the top of a steel beam.He wore a safety harness with a hook that could be attached to a safety line.At the first location where he worked, he attached himself to a safety line.However, as he walked along the beam to a second location, about 20 feet away, no safety lines were available.Moreover, there was no safety netting below.The injured plaintiff slipped on what he believed was ice on the beam and fell to the floor below.

Contrary to Kokolakis's contention, the plaintiffs' original motion was sufficiently supported by the affidavit of the injured plaintiff's coworker, who had personal knowledge of the facts ( seeFederal Fin. Co. v. Levine,281 A.D.2d 454, 455, 721 N.Y.S.2d 558;CPLR 3212[b] ).In any event, the failure to submit an affidavit by a person with knowledge of the facts is not necessarily fatal to a motion where, as here, the moving party submits other proof, such as deposition testimony with an attorney's affirmation ( seeAlvarez v. Prospect Hosp.,68 N.Y.2d 320, 325, 508 N.Y.S.2d 923, 501 N.E.2d 572;Olan v. Farrell Lines,64 N.Y.2d 1092, 1093, 489 N.Y.S.2d 884, 479 N.E.2d 229;Maragos v. Sakurai,92 A.D.3d 922, 923, 938 N.Y.S.2d...