| Preneta v North Castle, Inc. |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 06415 [65 AD3d 1027] |
| September 8, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Artur Preneta et al., Appellants, v North Castle, Inc.,Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent. S&G Painting, LLC, Third-PartyDefendant-Respondent. |
—[*1] Kelly & Leonard, LLP, Ballston Spa, N.Y. (Thomas E. Kelly of counsel), for defendantthird-party plaintiff-respondent and third-party defendant-respondent (one brief filed).
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited bytheir brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Liebowitz,J.), entered April 18, 2008, as, upon, inter alia, the denial of their motion pursuant to CPLR 4401for judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability on so much of the second cause of actionas sought to recover damages for violation of Labor Law § 240 (1), made at the close ofevidence, and, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the defendant and against them dismissing somuch of that cause of action as sought to recover damages for violation of Labor Law §240 (1).
Ordered that the judgment is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, theplaintiffs' motion pursuant to CPLR 4401 for judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liabilityon so much of the second cause of action as sought to recover damages for violation of LaborLaw § 240 (1) is granted, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, WestchesterCounty, for a trial on the issue of damages with respect thereto and the entry thereafter of anappropriate amended judgment.
The injured plaintiff was painting the trim on an area between an overhang and the roof of ahouse while standing on a closed A-frame ladder, which was resting on the overhang and leaningagainst the side of the house. The ladder slid out from under the injured plaintiff, causing him tofall and sustain injuries.
A motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to CPLR 4401 must be granted when,upon the evidence presented, there is "no rational process by which the fact trier could base afinding in favor of the nonmoving party" (Szczerbiak v Pilat, 90 NY2d 553, 556 [1997];see DeVito v City of New York, 62AD3d 934 [2009]).
Under the circumstances presented here, the trial court erred in denying the plaintiffs' motionfor judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability on so much of the second cause of [*2]action as was to recover damages for violation of Labor Law§ 240 (1). The only reasonable view of the evidence is that the defendant failed to providethe injured plaintiff with proper protection, and that this failure proximately caused the accident.Therefore, the defendant is liable under Labor Law § 240 (1) (see Rico-Castro v Do & Co N.Y. Catering,Inc., 60 AD3d 749, 750 [2009]; Chlebowski v Esber, 58 AD3d 662, 663 [2009]).
In light of our determination, we need not reach the plaintiffs' remaining contention. Mastro,J.P., Santucci, Eng and Lott, JJ., concur.