ROSARIO v. FRANKLIN PLAZA APARTMENTS INC (2026)

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Laura G. Douglas, J.), entered on or about May 29, 2025, which granted plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on their Labor Law § 240(1) claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff established prima facie entitlement to summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim through submitting his deposition testimony that the ladder he was using suddenly shifted, causing him to fall (see Duran v. ERY Retail Podium LLC, 238 A.D.3d 665, 665, 232 N.Y.S.3d 159 [1st Dept. 2025];  Rodas–Garcia v. NYC United LLC, 225 A.D.3d 556, 556, 207 N.Y.S.3d 473 [1st Dept. 2024];  Merino v. Continental Towers Condominium, 159 A.D.3d 471, 472–473, 72 N.Y.S.3d 59 [1st Dept. 2018]).  In opposition, defendants failed to raise an issue of fact.  Plaintiff's alleged statement to defendants’ security guard that he lost his footing does not contradict plaintiff's testimony that the ladder suddenly shifted (see Duran, 238 A.D.3d at 665, 232 N.Y.S.3d 159;  Rodas–Garcia, 225 A.D.3d at 556, 207 N.Y.S.3d 473;  Rom v. Eurostruct, Inc., 158 A.D.3d 570, 571, 71 N.Y.S.3d 57 [1st Dept. 2018]).  Similarly, nothing in plaintiff's medical records or the inadmissible ambulance report were inconsistent with plaintiff's description of the accident (see Pilapanta v. Hudson 888 Owner, LLC, 242 A.D.3d 673, 241 N.Y.S.3d 681 [1st Dept. 2025]).  Moreover, the emergency room resident who took plaintiff's history testified that because his notations were not in quotation marks, he may have been paraphrasing plaintiff's description.  The fact that an accident description is incomplete does not render it inconsistent (see Rodas–Garcia, 225 A.D.3d at 556, 207 N.Y.S.3d 473).