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.
Ward A. CUMMINGS, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Robert VARGO, Defendant-Appellant.
Plaintiff commenced this Labor Law and common-law negligence action seeking damages for injuries he sustained when he fell from the metal roof of defendant's commercial apartment building while applying fiber aluminum coating to the roof surface using a paint roller.
Supreme Court properly granted plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on liability with respect to the Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action. Plaintiff is entitled to the protection of Labor Law § 240(1) because he was a “ ‘falling worker’ ” engaged in a covered activity (see Partridge v. Waterloo Cent. School Dist., 12 A.D.3d 1054, 1055, 784 N.Y.S.2d 767). Contrary to defendant's contention, the application of the “silver coat” to the roof is the functional equivalent of painting (see Artoglou v. Gene Scappy Realty Corp., 57 A.D.3d 460, 461, 869 N.Y.S.2d 172). Painting is a protected activity that “need not [be] incidental to the other listed activities, such as construction, repair or alteration, to be covered” by Labor Law § 240(1) (De Oliveira v. Little John's Moving, 289 A.D.2d 108, 108, 734 N.Y.S.2d 165). We thus reject defendant's contention that plaintiff was engaged in routine maintenance rather than an expressly covered activity, i.e., painting.
We conclude that plaintiff established his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on liability with respect to the Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action. “[A]n ‘owner or contractor who has failed to provide any safety devices for workers' ” at a work site is absolutely liable for injuries sustained by a worker when the absence of such safety devices is a proximate cause of the worker's injuries (Felker v. Corning Inc., 90 N.Y.2d 219, 225, 660 N.Y.S.2d 349, 682 N.E.2d 950, quoting Zimmer v. Chemung County Performing Arts, 65 N.Y.2d 513, 518-519, 493 N.Y.S.2d 102, 482 N.E.2d 898, rearg. denied 65 N.Y.2d 1054, 494 N.Y.S.2d 1033, 484 N.E.2d 1055). Here, it is undisputed that plaintiff was not provided with ropes, harnesses or other safety devices, and defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact whether plaintiff's conduct was the sole proximate cause of the accident (see Smith v. Dieter, 15 A.D.3d 897, 789 N.Y.S.2d 778).
We reject defendant's contention that the court prematurely granted the motion because discovery was not yet completed. Defendant “failed to show that facts essential to justify opposition may exist but [could not] then be stated ․ and that [defendant] require[d] the discovery of facts that are within the exclusive knowledge of another party” (Croman v. County of Oneida, 32 A.D.3d 1186, 1187, 821 N.Y.S.2d 343 [internal quotation marks omitted] ).
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
MEMORANDUM:
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: June 12, 2009
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)