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.
Robert CARPENTIERI, et al., Plaintiffs–Respondents, v. 309 FIFTH AVENUE, LLC, et al., Defendants–Appellants. [And a Third–Party Action]
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert D. Kalish, J.), entered on or about August 14, 2018, which granted plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim as against defendants MEPT 309 Fifth Avenue, LLC and Lend Lease (US) Construction, Inc., unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff made a prima facie showing that his injuries were caused by a violation of Labor Law § 240(1), by presenting his testimony that he was applying masking tape to a wall fixture to prepare for painting while standing on the top plank of a scaffold about four feet above the floor, when the plank flipped up, causing him to fall to the floor (see Mendez v. Union Theol. Seminary in City of N.Y., 8 A.D.3d 32, 777 N.Y.S.2d 636 [1st Dept. 2004]). Plaintiff also presented photos of the scaffold showing that it had no guardrails (see Celaj v. Cornell, 144 A.D.3d 590, 42 N.Y.S.3d 25 [1st Dept. 2016]; Vergara v. SS 133 W. 21, LLC, 21 A.D.3d 279, 280, 800 N.Y.S.2d 134 [1st Dept. 2005]), and plaintiff was not supplied with any other safety devices (see Camacho v. Ironclad Artists, Inc., 174 A.D.3d 426, 101 N.Y.S.3d 845 [1st Dept. 2019]).
In opposition, defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the scaffold was an inadequate safety device. Testimony by a site safety manager that he saw another scaffold at some unspecified time after the accident, and that it did not appear defective or consistent with plaintiff's testimony or photos, did not raise an issue of fact (see Haynes v. Boricua Vil. Hous. Dev. Fund Co., Inc., 170 A.D.3d 509, 510, 96 N.Y.S.3d 178 [1st Dept. 2019]).
Furthermore, even assuming that defendants submitted admissible evidence establishing plaintiff's negligence, he was at most comparatively negligent, which is not a defense to Labor Law § 240(1) (see e.g. Celaj, 144 A.D.3d at 590, 42 N.Y.S.3d 25 [moving scaffold while standing on it without locking wheels]; Samuel v. Simone Dev. Co., 13 A.D.3d 112, 786 N.Y.S.2d 163 [1st Dept. 2004].
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.
Docket No: 11095
Decided: February 20, 2020
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)