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.
Donald A. VACANTI and Patricia Vacanti, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. HABASIT GLOBE, INC., f/k/a Globe International, Inc., f/k/a 1400 Clinton Street, Inc., Defendant-Appellant.
Supreme Court properly granted plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240(1). Donald A. Vacanti (plaintiff) was standing on a “foot scaffold”, which consisted of a wooden plank laid across two concrete blocks. The main scaffold that was supporting the “foot scaffold” came apart as plaintiff was reaching to repair the block wall of a loading dock, and plaintiff fell approximately 12 feet to the ground. We reject defendant's contention that there is an issue of fact whether the actions of plaintiff were the sole proximate cause of his injuries (cf., Weininger v. Hagedorn & Co., 91 N.Y.2d 958, 960, 672 N.Y.S.2d 840, 695 N.E.2d 709, rearg. denied 92 N.Y.2d 875, 677 N.Y.S.2d 777, 700 N.E.2d 317). Here, plaintiffs established that plaintiff fell because of the instability of the base scaffold and was injured because no safety devices were in place or provided by the owner, notwithstanding the fact that plaintiff's own workmen constructed the two scaffolds. “Because there is no dispute that there were no safety devices provided, this is not a case where ‘a reasonable jury could * * * conclude[ ] that plaintiff's actions were the sole proximate cause of his injuries,’ ” and plaintiffs therefore are entitled to partial summary judgment (DiVincenzo v. Tripart Dev., 272 A.D.2d 904, 905, 709 N.Y.S.2d 271).
Order unanimously affirmed without costs.
MEMORANDUM:
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 02, 2001
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth 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)