![]() ![]() Ctr., LP, 6 NY3d 550, 554 Rapalo v MJRB Kings Highway Realty, LLC, 163 AD3d at 1024). Rather, only where the worker's own conduct is the sole proximate cause of the accident is recovery under Labor Law § 240(1) unavailable (see Robinson v East Med. A worker's comparative negligence is not a defense to a cause of action under Labor Law § 240(1) (see Blake v Neighborhood Hous. The burden then shifts to the defendant to raise a triable issue of fact (see Bermejo v New York City Health & Hosps. To make a prima facie showing of liability under Labor Law § 240(1), a plaintiff must establish that the statute was violated and that the violation was a proximate cause of his or her injuries (see Felix v Klee & Woolf, LLP, 138 AD3d 920, 921). Labor Law § 240(1) imposes a nondelegable duty upon owners, general contractors, and their agents, to provide scaffolding which is "so constructed, placed and operated as to give proper protection" to employees using it (Labor Law § 240). In an order entered June 19, 2017, the Supreme Court denied the motion. Gerard's liability on the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240(1). The plaintiffs thereafter moved for summary judgment on the issue of St. The plaintiffs alleged violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), (2), (3), and 241(6), as well as common-law negligence. Gerard), which owned the building at the time of the accident. Gerard Magella in the Borough of Queens in the City of New York (hereinafter St. The injured plaintiff, and his wife suing derivatively, subsequently commenced this action against, among others, the defendant Roman Catholic Church of St. On November 3, 2014, while working at the subject premises, the injured plaintiff allegedly sustained injuries when the working platform of a scaffold on which he was working collapsed and he fell through the frame of the scaffold to the ground. Wilson Cruz (hereinafter the injured plaintiff) was employed by nonparty Innovax Pillar, Inc., as a laborer on a project involving the renovation of a school. Gerard Magella in the Borough of Queens in the City of New York on the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240(1) is granted. ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the issue of the liability of the defendant Roman Catholic Church of St. Gerard Magella in the Borough of Queens in the City of New York on the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240(1). The order denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the issue of the liability of the defendant Roman Catholic Church of St. In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rudolph E. Suglia of counsel), for appellants.įabiani Cohen & Hall, LLP, New York, NY (Alisa Dultz and Kevin B. Gorayeb & Associates, P.C., New York, NY (Peter D. Gerard Magella in Borough of Queens in the City of New York, respondents. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.Īppellate Division, Second Judicial Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. Gerard Magella in Borough of Queens in the City of N.Y. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |