| Kaminski v Carlyle One |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 04272 [51 AD3d 473] |
| May 8, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Marcin Kaminski, Appellant, v Carlyle One et al.,Respondents. (And a Third-Party Action.) |
—[*1] Shaub, Ahmuty, Citrin & Spratt, LLP, Lake Success (Christopher Simone of counsel), forrespondents.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter B. Tolub, J.), entered June 21, 2007,which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the brief, upon reargument, denied plaintiff'smotion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1)and § 241 (6), and granted defendants' cross motion for summary judgment dismissingplaintiff's claims under section 240 (1) and section 241 (6), unanimously modified, on the law,plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment granted as to his Labor Law § 240 (1)claim and defendants' cross motion denied as to that claim, and otherwise affirmed, withoutcosts.
Plaintiff was injured when he attempted to realign a side panel of the sidewalk bridge he andhis coworkers were constructing and the panel gave way and fell to the ground, taking him withit. Defendants' failure to provide plaintiff with any safety device to protect him against the risk ofa fall created by his need to lean over the side of the bridge to nail in the side panels leads toliability under Labor Law § 240 (1) (see Felker v Corning Inc., 90 NY2d 219, 224[1997]; Oliveira v Dormitory Auth. of State of N.Y., 292 AD2d 224 [2002]; Lightfootv State of New York, 245 AD2d 488 [1997]). Contrary to defendants' contention, coworkersare not a safety device contemplated by the statute.[*2]
Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-5.1 (j);§§ 23-1.15, 23-1.7 (b) and § 23-1.22 (c) (2) are not applicable to this case.Concur—Lippman, P.J., Mazzarelli, Sweeny, Moskowitz and Renwick, JJ. [See2007 NY Slip Op 31773(U).]