PEREZ v. NYC PARTNERSHIP HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FUND COMPANY INC (2008)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Jane Goodman, J.), entered June 19, 2008, which granted plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

 Defendants' suggestion to the contrary notwithstanding, plaintiff was not required to show that the ladder on which he was standing was defective (see Montalvo v. J. Petrocelli Constr., Inc., 8 A.D.3d 173, 780 N.Y.S.2d 558 [2004] ).   As we observed in Orellano v. 29 E. 37th St. Realty Corp., 292 A.D.2d 289, 291, 740 N.Y.S.2d 16 [2002], it is “sufficient for purposes of liability under section 240(1) that adequate safety devices to prevent the ladder from slipping or protecting plaintiff from falling were absent”;  see also Hart v. Turner Constr. Co., 30 A.D.3d 213, 818 N.Y.S.2d 499 [2006];  Peralta v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., 29 A.D.3d 493, 816 N.Y.S.2d 436 [2006].

 The testimony of plaintiff's supervisor that he saw plaintiff on the top step of the ladder, shortly before the accident, does not raise a triable issue of fact as to whether plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his injuries.   There is no evidence that plaintiff was not using the ladder correctly at the time of his accident, or that such prior misuse contributed in any way to the happening of the accident.   The supervisor did not witness the accident and conceded that he did not know why plaintiff fell.

Finally, there were no material inconsistencies between plaintiff's testimony at the General Municipal Law § 50-h hearing and his deposition, with regard to the occurrence of the accident, that would cast doubt on his credibility.