PEREZ v. Skyline Facade Restoration, Inc., Defendant. (2026)

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Matthew Parker–Raso, J.), entered July 22, 2025, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability on his Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Supreme Court correctly granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action.  The evidence demonstrated that plaintiff was not provided a ladder or other safety device, but was nonetheless ordered to climb a scaffold or tubing to access an elevated sidewalk bridge to remove wood.  In the process of doing so, the tubing became loose, causing plaintiff to fall.  Plaintiff's uncontradicted testimony as to the loose tubing and the failure to provide a ladder was sufficient to make out his prima facie case (see Van Guilder v. Sands Hecht Constr. Corp., 199 A.D.2d 164, 164, 606 N.Y.S.2d 1 [1st Dept 2021];  Badzio v. East 68th St. Tenants Corp., 200 A.D.3d 591, 592, 161 N.Y.S.3d 32 [1st Dept 1993] ).

Defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact, insofar as they failed to present testimony or other evidence controverting plaintiff's account of the accident.  It is immaterial that the accident was unwitnessed because “there is nothing in the record that contradicts plaintiff's version of the accident or raises an issue as to his credibility” (Gutierrez v. Turner Towers Tenants Corp., 202 A.D.3d 437, 438, 163 N.Y.S.3d 6 [1st Dept 2022] ).  Defendants identified no evidence that plaintiff refused to use a ladder provided to him (see Stolt v. General Foods Corp., 81 N.Y.2d 918, 920, 597 N.Y.S.2d 650, 613 N.E.2d 556 [1993] ).  Plaintiff testified that no adequate safety devices were provided, and defendants presented no evidence to the contrary.