SOCZEK v. 8629 BAY PARKWAY LLC (2021)

DECISION & ORDER

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant 8629 Bay Parkway, LLC, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bernard Graham, J.), dated June 7, 2018.  The order granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240(1) insofar as asserted against it.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff Marek Soczek (hereinafter the injured plaintiff) allegedly was injured when he fell from an extension ladder while working on a building undergoing renovation.  The injured plaintiff, and his wife suing derivatively, commenced this action against, among others, the defendant 8629 Bay Parkway, LLC (hereinafter the defendant), inter alia, asserting a cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240(1).  Following discovery, the plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240(1) insofar as asserted against the defendant.  The Supreme Court granted the plaintiffs' motion.  The defendant appeals, and we affirm.

“Labor Law § 240(1) imposes upon owners and general contractors, and their agents, a nondelegable duty to provide safety devices necessary to protect workers from risks inherent in elevated work sites” (McCarthy v. Turner Constr., Inc., 17 N.Y.3d 369, 374, 929 N.Y.S.2d 556, 953 N.E.2d 794;  see Orellana v. 7 W. 34th St., LLC, 173 A.D.3d 886, 887, 103 N.Y.S.3d 496).  “To prevail on a cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240(1), a plaintiff must establish that the statute was violated and that the violation was a proximate cause of his or her injuries” (Lopez–Dones v. 601 W. Assoc., LLC, 98 A.D.3d 476, 479, 949 N.Y.S.2d 165;  see Viera v. WFJ Realty Corp., 140 A.D.3d 737, 738, 31 N.Y.S.3d 613).

The Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action insofar as asserted against the defendant.  The plaintiffs established, prima facie, the defendant's liability under Labor Law § 240(1) through their submissions, which demonstrated that the injured plaintiff was provided with a ladder that lacked rubber feet and that the ladder slid on the concrete surface on which it had been placed, causing the plaintiff to fall to the ground (see Fox v. H & M Hennes & Mauritz, L.P., 83 A.D.3d 889, 922 N.Y.S.2d 139;  Barr v. 157 5 Ave., LLC, 60 A.D.3d 796, 797, 875 N.Y.S.2d 228;  Jicheng Liu v. Sanford Tower Condominium, Inc., 35 A.D.3d 378, 379, 828 N.Y.S.2d 101;  Boe v. Gammarati, 26 A.D.3d 351, 351–352, 809 N.Y.S.2d 550).  In opposition, the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact, including as to whether the injured plaintiff's conduct was the sole proximate cause of the accident (see Ortiz v. Burke Ave. Realty, Inc., 126 A.D.3d 577, 3 N.Y.S.3d 582;  Triola v. City of New York, 62 A.D.3d 984, 986, 880 N.Y.S.2d 126;  Orphanoudakis v. Dormitory Auth. of State of N.Y., 40 A.D.3d 502, 837 N.Y.S.2d 61).

RIVERA, J.P., CONNOLLY, BRATHWAITE NELSON and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.