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.
Brian DAVIDSON, Appellant, v. E.Q.K. GREEN ACRES, LP, et al., Respondents (and a third-party action).
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Parga, J.), dated May 28, 2002, which denied his motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability on his causes of action pursuant to Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6), and 241-a, without prejudice to renew upon completion of discovery.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is granted.
The plaintiff, a laborer, was employed by the general contractor on a project involving the construction of a new commercial building on property owned by the defendant E.Q.K. Green Acres, LP, and leased by the defendant Circuit City Stores, Inc. The plaintiff was injured when, as he and a co-worker were hanging a plastic curtain wall along the edge of the mezzanine level of the building, he fell more than 19 feet through an uncovered elevator shaft. His motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability was supported by his affidavit, in which he stated, inter alia, that there were no safety devices on site to prevent his fall. He also submitted a sworn statement of a co-worker who witnessed the accident, and records from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. His proof further established that the uncovered, unguarded opening into which he fell violated 12 NYCRR § 23-1.7(b)(1), and Labor Law § 241-a.
The plaintiff made a prima facie showing of his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability (see Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Center, 64 N.Y.2d 851, 853, 487 N.Y.S.2d 316, 476 N.E.2d 642; Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562, 427 N.Y.S.2d 595, 404 N.E.2d 718). The defendants' opposition consisted merely of expressions of hope that discovery would reveal that they had a defense to the action. Thus, the Supreme Court erred in denying the motion with leave to renew upon completion of discovery (see Public Adm'r of Kings County v. Tomassetti, 271 A.D.2d 515, 706 N.Y.S.2d 350; Bryan v. City of New York, 206 A.D.2d 448, 614 N.Y.S.2d 554; cf. Denkensohn v. Davenport, 130 A.D.2d 860, 861, 515 N.Y.S.2d 920).
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.
Decided: October 28, 2002
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)