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.
Juan SANTAMARIA, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. 1125 PARK AVENUE CORPORATION, Defendant-Respondent, Tower Building Restoration, Inc., Defendant-Appellant. [And Other Actions.]
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Luis Gonzalez, J.), entered on or about July 17, 1997, which, in an action by a laborer to recover for personal injuries, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant-appellant general contractor's motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's complaint, and granted plaintiff's cross motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability on his Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) claims, and order, same court (Howard Silver, J.), entered on or about January 29, 1997, which, insofar as appealable, denied defendant's motion to renew the prior order, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Defendant general contractor is liable as a matter of law under Labor Law § 240(1) where plaintiff, while engaged in brick replacement work on the exterior wall of a building, fell a distance of eight to fifteen feet when the permanently affixed ladder he was using to gain access to the roof where tools were being stored broke off from the wall. We note that defendant submits no competent evidence refuting plaintiff's claim that tools he needed to do his job were being stored on the roof and that access to the roof could only be attained by using the permanently affixed ladder (see, Oprea v. New York City Hous. Auth., 226 A.D.2d 310, 642 N.Y.S.2d 633; Kirchner v. BRC Human Servs. Corp., 224 A.D.2d 270, 638 N.Y.S.2d 20). Summary judgment was also properly granted to plaintiff on his Labor Law § 241(6) claim upon proof demonstrating that the subject ladder did not comply with the minimum strength standard specified in 12 NYCRR 23-1.21(b)(1). It does not avail defendant that it had no control over the ladder and that the defect was latent, it being well settled that a general contractor's liability under sections 240(1) and 241(6) is not dependent on either its degree of control over the work or on whether it had notice of the defective condition (see, Ross v. Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Corp., 81 N.Y.2d 494, 500, 502, 601 N.Y.S.2d 49, 618 N.E.2d 82).
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
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: April 02, 1998
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)