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, v. CHATHAM TOWERS, INC., et al., Defendants-Respondents, Rockledge Scaffold Corp., Defendant-Appellant. [And A Third-Party Action].
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered April 12, 2000, which, after a nonjury trial in an action by a laborer under Labor Law § 240(1), apportioned liability 10% against defendant-respondent building owner, 30% against defendant-respondent general contractor, and 60% against defendant-appellant sidewalk bridge builder, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
A fair interpretation of the evidence supports the trial court's finding that appellant's negligence was the main cause of plaintiff's injury. Appellant's principal testified that the only instructions appellant received was to build the bridge “according to Code,” and evidence at trial showed that the bridge was noncompliant with the Code in at least one respect significantly related to the accident, namely, the failure to erect a barrier around the opening through which plaintiff fell (12 NYCRR 23-1.7[b]). We reject appellant's argument that the unexplained placement of a piece of plywood over the opening constituted a superceding cause of the accident. Had a barrier been in place, plaintiff would have been put on notice of a dangerous condition, and would not have walked unsuspectingly onto the makeshift plywood cover. In view of the foregoing, there can be no review of the 10% apportionment made against the building owner since it did not file an appeal or cross appeal (see, Hecht v. City of New York, 60 N.Y.2d 57, 62, 467 N.Y.S.2d 187, 454 N.E.2d 527).
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: May 10, 2001
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)