STEPHEN JONES PLAINTIFF APPELLANT v. NAZARETH COLLEGE OF ROCHESTER LECHASE CONSTRUCTION SERVICES LLC AND BILLITIER ELECTRIC INC DEFENDANTS RESPONDENTS (2017)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

STEPHEN M. JONES, PLAINTIFF–APPELLANT, v. NAZARETH COLLEGE OF ROCHESTER, LECHASE CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, LLC, AND BILLITIER ELECTRIC, INC., DEFENDANTS–RESPONDENTS.
NAZARETH COLLEGE OF ROCHESTER AND LECHASE CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, LLC, THIRD–PARTY PLAINTIFFS–RESPONDENTS, v. CROSBY–BROWNLIE, INC., THIRD–PARTY DEFENDANT–RESPONDENT.

CA 16–00813

Decided: February 03, 2017

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CARNI, LINDLEY, DEJOSEPH, AND NEMOYER, JJ.

SMITH, MINER, O'SHEA & SMITH, LLP, BUFFALO (CARRIE L. SMITH OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF–APPELLANT. THE TARANTINO LAW FIRM, LLP, BUFFALO (TAMSIN J. HAGER OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS–RESPONDENTS AND THIRD–PARTY PLAINTIFFS–RESPONDENTS. HURWITZ & FINE, P.C., BUFFALO (DAVID R. ADAMS OF COUNSEL), FOR THIRD–PARTY DEFENDANT–RESPONDENT.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this Labor Law and common-law negligence action seeking damages for injuries he sustained when he fell from an A-frame ladder. We conclude that Supreme Court properly denied plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability with respect to the Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action. At the time of the accident, plaintiff was using a 10–foot A-frame ladder to install flashing around a duct. The ladder was folded shut and leaning against the wall while plaintiff was using it. Just before the accident, he was using both hands to take a measurement above his head, while standing on “the fourth or fifth rung” of the ladder, which was “at least four feet off the floor.” As he extended his tape measure, he felt a strong electric shock to his left arm and he fell off the ladder.

Contrary to plaintiff's contention, we conclude that the court properly denied the motion. “[T]here are questions of fact ․ whether ․ the ladder, which was not shown to be defective in any way, failed to provide proper protection, and whether ․ plaintiff should have been provided with additional safety devices” (Gange v. Tilles Inv. Co., 220 A.D.2d 556, 558; see Nazario v. 222 Broadway, LLC, 28 NY3d 1054, 1055; Grogan v. Norlite Corp., 282 A.D.2d 781, 782–783; Donovan v. CNY Consol. Contrs., 278 A.D.2d 881, 881).

Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

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.

Explore the Network