| Conklin v Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 02017 [49 AD3d 320] |
| March 11, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| James Conklin, Appellant-Respondent, v TriboroughBridge and Tunnel Authority et al., Respondents-Appellants. |
—[*1] Jones Hirsch Connors & Bull, P.C., New York City (Katina Despas-Barous of counsel), forrespondents-appellants.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Yvonne Gonzalez, J.), entered on or about December18, 2006, which denied plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment on his Labor Law §240 claim, granted the portions of defendants' motion for summary judgment that sought todismiss the Labor Law §§ 240 and 241 (6) claims, except insofar as the latter ispredicated upon Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-1.7 (f), and denied the portion ofdefendants' motion that sought to dismiss the Labor Law § 200 claim against defendantCampbell Painting, unanimously modified, on the law, plaintiff's cross motion for summaryjudgment on his Labor Law § 240 claim granted, defendant's motion to dismiss that claimdenied, and defendant's motion to dismiss the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim denied insofar asthat claim is predicated upon Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-1.7 (d), and otherwiseaffirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff alleges that he was injured when he slipped on a "chicken ladder" or "makeshiftladder," consisting of two parallel wooden planks with two-by-fours nailed across them at regularintervals, which was placed on sloped ground to function as a ramp, and which provided the solemeans of access to his employer's shanty. As a ramp, the "chicken ladder" presented a riskcovered by Labor Law § 240, and the record demonstrates that defendants' failure to equipit with a handrail or other safety device was the proximate cause of plaintiff's injuries (seeMcCann v Central Synagogue, 280 AD2d 298, 299-300 [2001]). We note that plaintiff'suntimely cross motion was not improperly considered, since it sought relief on the same issues aswere raised in defendants' timely motion (see Altschuler v Gramatan Mgt., Inc., 27 AD3d 304, 304-305[2006]).
Plaintiff's Labor Law § 241 (6) claim predicated upon Industrial Code (12 NYCRR)§ 23-1.7 (f) was properly sustained, because the ramp, which is alleged to have beenunsafe, provided a means of access to different working levels. The claim predicated uponsection 23-1.7 (d) should have been sustained because the ramp constituted a passageway allegedto have been covered in a slippery substance. Plaintiff slipped not on muddy ground but on mudcovering the cross-pieces of the ramp. The remaining Labor Law § 241 (6) claims wereproperly dismissed.
Plaintiff's Labor Law § 200 claim was properly sustained as against Campbell, thegeneral contractor, who constructed and maintained the "chicken ladder" alleged to have been[*2]constantly in a muddy and slippery state (see Comes vNew York State Elec. & Gas Corp., 82 NY2d 876, 877 [1993]; Lombardi v Stout, 80NY2d 290 [1992]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Buckley, Sweeny and Moskowitz, JJ.