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.
Hermenegildo CARINO, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants-Respondents, v. WEBSTER PLACE ASSOCIATES, LP, et al., Defendants-Respondents-Appellants.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard R. Silver, J.), entered March 29, 2006, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on their Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action and denied defendants' cross motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of plaintiffs' Labor Law § 200 and § 240(1) claims, unanimously modified, on the law, plaintiffs' motion granted, and that part of defendants' cross motion seeking dismissal of the Labor Law § 200 cause of action granted, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff was entitled to partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action, where he was injured when he fell from a ladder while in the course of removing an eight-foot high fence at a construction site. Regardless of the method employed by plaintiff to remove the fence, the ladder provided to him was not an adequate safety device for the task he was performing and was a proximate cause of the fall and resulting injuries (see Ben Gui Zhu v. Great Riv. Holding, LLC., 16 A.D.3d 185, 791 N.Y.S.2d 43 [2005]; Dunn v. Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc., 272 A.D.2d 129, 707 N.Y.S.2d 420 [2000] ).
Dismissal of the Labor Law § 200 cause of action was warranted since there is no evidence that defendants exercised supervision or control over plaintiff's work (see Comes v. New York State Elec. & Gas Corp., 82 N.Y.2d 876, 609 N.Y.S.2d 168, 631 N.E.2d 110 [1993]; Dalanna v. City of New York, 308 A.D.2d 400, 764 N.Y.S.2d 429 [2003] ).
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: November 13, 2007
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)