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.
Diomedes JIMINEZ, et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. The NIDUS CORPORATION, et al., Defendants-Appellants, Coastal Building Corp., et al., Defendants. And a Third-Party Action.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Michael DeMarco, J.), entered March 1, 2001, which granted plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability on their Labor Law § 240(1) claim, and denied defendants' cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The evidence adduced on the motion established that plaintiff construction worker was injured when he slipped on ice and fell head-first into a 15-foot deep foundation excavation situated adjacent to his work area. It is undisputed that plaintiff had not been provided any safety devices to prevent or break his fall. Under these circumstances, plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment as to liability was properly granted since his injury was clearly caused by an elevation-related hazard within the remedial ambit of Labor Law § 240(1). Defendants, in response to plaintiff's prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, failed to raise any triable issue either as to whether they provided safety devices or as to whether their failure to provide such devices was the proximate cause of plaintiff's harm (see, Trillo v.. City of New York, 262 A.D.2d 121, 691 N.Y.S.2d 515).
With regard to the remaining issues raised by defendants' cross motion for summary judgment, the motion court properly found that defendants' failure to proffer evidence in admissible form precluded an award of summary judgment (see, Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 563, 427 N.Y.S.2d 595, 404 N.E.2d 718).
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: November 20, 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)