| Yin Min Zhu v Triple L. Group, LLC |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 05771 [64 AD3d 590] |
| July 7, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Yin Min Zhu, Appellant, v Triple L. Group, LLC,Respondent. |
—[*1] Greenfield & Ruhl, Uniondale, N.Y. (Brian J. Greenfield and Scott L. Mathias of counsel),for respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order ofthe Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), dated March 27, 2008, which denied his motion forsummary judgment on the issue of liability on so much of the complaint as alleged a violation ofLabor Law § 240 (1).
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the plaintiff's motion forsummary judgment on the issue of liability on so much of the complaint as alleged a violation ofLabor Law § 240 (1) is granted.
The plaintiff established his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue ofliability on so much of the complaint as alleged a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) bysubmitting his affidavit and deposition testimony, which demonstrated that he fell from anunsecured ladder, and that the failure to secure the ladder proximately caused his injuries (seeGordon v Eastern Ry. Supply, 82 NY2d 555, 562 [1993]; Gilhooly v Dormitory Auth. of State ofN.Y., 51 AD3d 719, 720 [2008]; Ricciardi v Bernard Janowitz Constr. Corp., 49 AD3d 624, 625[2008]; Peter v Nisseli Realty Co., 300 AD2d 289, 290 [2002]; Schuler v Kings PlazaShopping Ctr. & Mar., 294 AD2d 556, 557-558 [2002]). In opposition, the defendant failedto raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff's conduct was the sole proximate causeof the accident (see Gilhooly v Dormitory Auth. of State of N.Y., 51 AD3d at 720;Ricciardi v Bernard Janowitz Constr. Corp., 49 AD3d at 625). The fact that the plaintiffmay have been the sole witness to the accident does not preclude the award of summaryjudgment in his favor (see Klein v City of New York, 89 NY2d 833 [1996]; Rivera v Dafna Constr. Co., Ltd., 27AD3d 545 [2006]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiff'smotion. Mastro, J.P., Skelos, Dickerson and Lott, JJ., concur.