| Perez v NYC Partnership Hous. Dev. Fund Co., Inc. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 07994 [55 AD3d 419] |
| October 23, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Juan Perez, Respondent, v NYC Partnership HousingDevelopment Fund Company, Inc., et al., Appellants. |
—[*1] Law Office of Michael Singer, P.C., New York (Elizabeth Mark Meyerson of counsel), forrespondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Jane Goodman, J.), entered June 19, 2008,which granted plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1)claim, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Defendants' suggestion to the contrary notwithstanding, plaintiff was not required to showthat the ladder on which he was standing was defective (see Montalvo v J. Petrocelli Constr.,Inc., 8 AD3d 173 [2004]). As we observed in Orellano v 29 E. 37th St. Realty Corp.(292 AD2d 289, 291 [2002]), it is "sufficient for purposes of liability under section 240 (1) thatadequate safety devices to prevent the ladder from slipping or to protect plaintiff from fallingwere absent" (see also Hart v Turner Constr. Co., 30 AD3d 213 [2006]; Peralta vAmerican Tel. & Tel. Co., 29 AD3d 493 [2006]).
The testimony of plaintiff's supervisor that he saw plaintiff on the top step of the ladder,shortly before the accident, does not raise a triable issue of fact as to whether plaintiff was thesole proximate cause of his injuries. There is no evidence that plaintiff was not using the laddercorrectly at the time of his accident, or that such prior misuse contributed in any way to thehappening of the accident. The supervisor did not witness the accident and conceded that he didnot know why plaintiff fell.
Finally, there were no material inconsistencies between plaintiff's testimony at the [*2]General Municipal Law § 50-h hearing and his deposition,with regard to the occurrence of the accident, that would cast doubt on his credibility.Concur—Lippman, P.J., Andrias, Saxe, Sweeny and DeGrasse, JJ. [See 20 Misc3d 1106(A), 2008 NY Slip Op 51251(U).]