Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Francisco AGEITOS, et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents-Appellants, v. CHATHAM TOWERS, INC., Defendant-Respondent, Rockledge Scaffold Corp., et al., Defendants-Appellants-Respondents. [And A Third-Party Action.]
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louise Gruner Gans, J.), entered April 28, 1998, which, insofar as appealed from, denied plaintiffs' motion and the main defendants' cross motions for summary judgment, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant plaintiffs partial summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240(1) against defendants building owner Chatham Towers, Inc. and general contractor Big Apple Restoration, Inc., and otherwise affirmed, without costs.
Although plaintiff's moving affidavit, which failed to address the reason he was walking on top of the sidewalk bridge from which he fell, is insufficient, by itself, to establish his entitlement to partial summary judgment as to liability under Labor Law § 240(1), the transcript of his deposition, submitted by the general contractor in opposition to plaintiff's motion, shows that plaintiff was required to walk on the sidewalk bridge to perform his job on the building restoration project at which he was employed. Plaintiff's testimony that a plywood board on the sidewalk bridge gave way under him, causing him to fall and sustain injury, is by itself sufficient to establish a prima facie case of liability against the building owner and the general contractor (see, Noah v. 270 Lafayette Assocs., 233 A.D.2d 108, 649 N.Y.S.2d 419). Factual issues preclude the granting of the general contractor's cross motion for summary judgment on its cross claims for indemnification, as well as the cross motion by the supplier of the sidewalk bridge for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims as against it.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: December 15, 1998
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)