CLARKE v. [And A Third-Party Action]. (2009)

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mark Friedlander, J.), entered July 15, 2008, which, insofar as appealed from, granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240(1), and denied defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs' claim pursuant to Labor Law § 241(6), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

 Plaintiff, who was employed to perform carpentry work on a construction project at SUNY Downstate Medical Center, was injured when two metal stud beams that were being hoisted from the street were dropped from a sidewalk bridge and landed on his face, chest and shoulders.   Plaintiffs met their burden of demonstrating that defendant's failure to provide adequate safety devices was a contributing cause of plaintiff's injuries in violation of § 240(1) (see Kielar v. Metro. Museum of Art, 55 A.D.3d 456, 458, 866 N.Y.S.2d 629 [2008];  Greaves v. Obayashi Corp., 55 A.D.3d 409, 866 N.Y.S.2d 47 [2008] ), and plaintiff was not, under any view of the evidence, the sole proximate cause of his injuries (see Zuluaga v. P.P.C. Constr., LLC, 45 A.D.3d 479, 480, 847 N.Y.S.2d 30 [2007];  Kyle v. City of New York, 268 A.D.2d 192, 196, 707 N.Y.S.2d 445 [2000], lv. denied 97 N.Y.2d 608, 739 N.Y.S.2d 97, 765 N.E.2d 300 [2002] ).

 The court properly denied defendant's motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs' § 241(6) claim premised on Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-1.7(a)(1).   This rule is sufficiently specific to support a cause of action under § 241(6) (see Murtha v. Integral Constr. Corp., 253 A.D.2d 637, 639, 677 N.Y.S.2d 338 [1998] ), and a material question of fact remains as to whether the area where the accident occurred was an area “ normally exposed to falling material or objects,” and as to whether the sidewalk bridge without safety netting provided appropriate overhead protection to workers in that area.

We have considered defendant's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.