Weber v. Baccarat Inc.

• Decision Date: 16 February 2010
• Citation: 70 A.D.3d 487,896 N.Y.S.2d 12,2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 01361
• Parties: Arthur WEBER, et al., Plaintiffs–Respondents/Appellants,v.BACCARAT, INC., Defendant–Appellant,Baccarat Real Estate, Inc., et al., Defendants,625 Madison Avenue Associates, et al., Defendants–Appellants/Respondents,King Freeze Mechanical Corp., Defendant–Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

70 A.D.3d 487
896 N.Y.S.2d 12
2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 01361

Arthur WEBER, et al., Plaintiffs–Respondents/Appellants,
v.
BACCARAT, INC., Defendant–Appellant,Baccarat Real Estate, Inc., et al., Defendants,625 Madison Avenue Associates, et al., Defendants–Appellants/Respondents,King Freeze Mechanical Corp., Defendant–Respondent.

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

Feb. 16, 2010.

[896 N.Y.S.2d 13]

Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP, New York (Judy C. Selmeci of counsel), for Baccarat, Inc., appellant.Callan, Koster, Brady & Brennan, LLP, New York (Michael P. Kandler of counsel), for 625 Madison Avenue Associates and Related Management Corp., appellants/respondents.Sheindlin & Sullivan, New York (Gregory Sheindlin of counsel), for Weber, respondents/appellants.Goldberg Segalla LLP, White Plains (William T. O'Connell of counsel), for King Freeze Mechanical Corp., respondent.SAXE, J.P., MOSKOWITZ, ABDUS–SALAAM, ROMÁN, JJ.

[70 A.D.3d 487] Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward H. Lehner, J.), entered August 1, 2008, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted plaintiffs' motion to sever defendant IDI Construction Company from the action and granted their motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240(1) as against defendants Baccarat, Inc. and 625 Madison Avenue Associates only, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant the motion for summary judgment as against defendant King Freeze Mechanical Corp., and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff Arthur Weber was injured in a fall from the fourth or fifth rung of an A-frame ladder on which he was standing while installing a heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) system in a ceiling. Plaintiff testified that he heard a “pop” and saw the right rear leg of the ladder shift forward and separate from the top plate, causing the ladder to fall. This uncontested testimony that the ladder broke by itself established prima facie a violation of Labor Law § 240(1) and that the [70 A.D.3d 488] violation was a proximate cause of plaintiff's injuries ( Panek v. County of Albany, 99 N.Y.2d 452, 458, 758 N.Y.S.2d 267, 788 N.E.2d 616 [2003]; Belding v. Verizon N.Y., Inc., 65 A.D.3d 414, 883 N.Y.S.2d 517 [2009]; D'Amico v. Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co., 177 A.D.2d 441, 442, 576 N.Y.S.2d 536 [1991] ). The fact that plaintiff was the only witness to his accident presents no bar to summary judgment in his favor since...