PADOS v. CITY OF NEW YORK (2021)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alan C. Marin, J.), entered February 21, 2020, which, to the extent appealed from, denied plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on his claim pursuant to Labor Law § 240(1), unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted.

Plaintiff, a journeyman ironworker at the Hudson Yards project, was injured when a piece of rebar fell from 30 feet above, striking him.  In moving for summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim, plaintiff was not required to show the exact circumstances of how the rebar came to strike him, as his testimony, that a coworker was working with rebar 30 feet above him on the same column immediately before the accident, was sufficient evidence that the rebar, whether it was dropped or fell in some other manner, was material requiring securing (see Salcedo v. Sustainable Energy Options, LLC, 190 A.D.3d 439, 139 N.Y.S.3d 197 [1st Dept. 2021];  Albuquerque v. City of New York, 188 A.D.3d 515, 132 N.Y.S.3d 604 [1st Dept. 2020];  Diaz v. Raveh Realty, LLC, 182 A.D.3d 515, 120 N.Y.S.3d 776 [1st Dept. 2020];  Humphrey v. Park View Fifth Ave. Assoc. LLC, 113 A.D.3d 558, 979 N.Y.S.2d 317 [1st Dept. 2014]).  In that plaintiff made a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment on his testimony alone, the admissibility of his coworker's unsigned deposition transcript is a moot point.  Defendants failed to adduce any evidence raising a question of fact to warrant denial of plaintiff's motion.  In light of the foregoing, plaintiff's Labor Law § 241(6) claim is academic (see Jerez v. Tishman Constr. Corp. of N.Y., 118 A.D.3d 617, 989 N.Y.S.2d 465 [1st Dept. 2014]).