| Romanczuk v Metropolitan Ins. & Annuity Co. |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 03385 [72 AD3d 592] |
| April 27, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Andrzej Romanczuk, Respondent, v MetropolitanInsurance and Annuity Company et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants. (And OtherActions.) |
—[*1] Ahmuty, Demers & McManus, Albertson (Brendan T. Fitzpatrick of counsel), for TitanRestoration, Inc., appellant. The Perecman Firm, P.L.L.C., New York (David H. Perecman of counsel), forrespondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marylin G. Diamond, J.), entered March 23,2009, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted plaintiff's motion forpartial summary judgment on the issue of defendants-appellants' liability under Labor Law§ 240 (1), unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The record demonstrates that the failure of appellants to properly construct and secure thescaffolding, and the failure to provide adequate safety devices was a proximate cause ofplaintiff's injury. Appellants' argument that plaintiff and his foreman's conflicting versions of theaccident preclude summary judgment on the issue of liability under section 240 (1) is unavailingwhere, as here, the statute was violated under either version of the accident (see Ernish v City of New York, 2AD3d 256, 257 [2003]; John v Baharestani, 281 AD2d 114, 117 [2001]).
The motion court also correctly determined that the plaintiff's own alleged negligence wasnot the sole proximate cause of his accident, since it is undisputed that plaintiff was using thedevice he had been provided with in order to access the bulkhead located on the building's roof;that there were insufficient planks on the scaffold for plaintiff to stand on; and that no othersafety devices were provided to prevent or protect plaintiff from a possible fall (see Ben Gui Zhu v Great Riv. Holding,LLC, 16 AD3d 185 [2005]). Plaintiff's conduct, at most, constituted comparativenegligence, which is not a defense [*2]under Labor Law §240 (1) (see Picano v Rockefeller Ctr.N., Inc., 68 AD3d 425 [2009]; Aponte v City of New York, 55 AD3d 485 [2008]).Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Saxe and DeGrasse, JJ.