| Wolfson v Rockledge Scaffolding Corp. |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 08811 [67 AD3d 1001] |
| November 24, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Michael Wolfson, Respondent, v Rockledge ScaffoldingCorp., Appellant, and IRW Restoration Corp., Respondent, et al.,Defendants. |
—[*1]
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Rockledge ScaffoldingCorp. appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, QueensCounty (Hart, J.), dated October 23, 2008, as denied its motion, in effect, for summary judgmentdismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.
Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and themotion of the defendant Rockledge Scaffolding Corp., in effect, for summary judgmentdismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it is granted.
On the afternoon of October 28, 2003, the plaintiff tripped and fell over an elevationdifferential in the sidewalk, in front of 233 Broadway, in Manhattan, which was less than an inchin magnitude. He subsequently commenced the present action, naming as defendants variousentities, including the appellant, a company which erected scaffolding in front of the premises.
The evidence submitted by the appellant in support of its motion for summary judgmentdismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it, including, inter alia,the deposition testimony of Vincent Baffa, the building manager of 233 Broadway, established,prima facie, that the scaffolding erected by the appellant did not cause or create the allegedsidewalk defect which caused the subject accident (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). The bare affirmation of the plaintiff's attorney, who demonstrated nopersonal knowledge of the manner in which the scaffolding was erected, was without evidentiaryvalue and failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49NY2d 557, 563 [1980]). According, the Supreme Court should have granted the appellant'smotion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as assertedagainst it. Rivera, J.P., Dickerson, Hall and Lott, JJ., concur.