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.
Salvatore MANFREDONIA, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. 750 ASTOR LLC, Defendant-Appellant,
Lynn Ladder and Scaffolding Co., Inc., Defendant. 750 Astor LLC, Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jewish Board of Family and Children's Services, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Appellant.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lucindo Suarez, J.), entered April 22, 2022, which granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as to liability on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim against defendant property owner, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff established entitlement to judgment as a matter of law as to the owner's liability. He submitted deposition testimony showing that he was on site to repair a drain pipe on third-party defendant tenant's HVAC unit that needed to be removed and reset at the correct angle, when the extension ladder he was using collapsed as he descended (see Benfanti v. Tri–Main Dev., 231 A.D.2d 855, 855, 647 N.Y.S.2d 616 [4th Dept. 1996]; see also Crossett v. Schofell, 256 A.D.2d 881, 881–882, 681 N.Y.S.2d 819 [4th Dept. 1998]).
The owner and tenant failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether plaintiff was performing routine maintenance instead of a repair (Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562, 427 N.Y.S.2d 595, 404 N.E.2d 718 [1980]). They failed to proffer any evidence to contradict plaintiff's explanation of the work he planned to perform (see Soriano v. St. Mary's Indian Orthodox Church of Rockland, Inc., 118 A.D.3d 524, 526–527, 988 N.Y.S.2d 58 [1st Dept. 2014]; compare Santiago v. Fred–Doug 117, L.L.C., 68 A.D.3d 555, 556, 891 N.Y.S.2d 59 [1st Dept. 2009]). Additionally, the deposition testimony of plaintiff's employer, supported by the employer's business records proffered by the tenant in opposition, shows that the absence of a work ticket on the date of the accident does not controvert plaintiff's testimony, since work tickets were only prepared after work was performed and plaintiff fell before he could begin work that day. Furthermore, contrary to the owner and tenant's contentions, the absence of a work ticket showing that the repair as described by plaintiff was subsequently performed by another service tech does not “call[ ] into question the plaintiff's credibility” (Alvarez v. 2455 8 Ave, LLC, 202 A.D.3d 724, 725, 158 N.Y.S.3d 890 [2d Dept. 2022]).
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: 512
Decided: June 22, 2023
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)