| Ferris v Benbow Chem. Packaging, Inc. |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 05146 [74 AD3d 1831] |
| June 11, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| Jon Dennis Ferris, Sr., et al., Respondents, v Benbow ChemicalPackaging, Inc., Appellant. |
—[*1]
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Brian F. DeJoseph, J.),entered September 17, 2009 in a personal injury action. The order granted plaintiffs' motion forpartial summary judgment.
It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Plaintiffs commenced this Labor Law and common-law negligence actionseeking damages for injuries sustained by Jon Dennis Ferris, Sr. (plaintiff). We conclude thatSupreme Court properly granted plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on liability withrespect to the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action. At the time of the accident, plaintiffwas installing a pipe system for cleaning defendant's cylindrical storage tanks. Plaintiff wasworking on an A-frame ladder, which he had leaned against one of the tanks in the closedposition, when the ladder partially slid out from underneath him. The ladder stopped slidingwhen it reached a seam in the concrete floor, causing the rung on which plaintiff was standing tobreak and plaintiff to fall. Plaintiffs met their initial burden of establishing "as a matter of lawthat [plaintiff] was injured as the result of a fall from an elevated work site and that defendant[ ]failed to provide a sufficient safety device" (Aton v Syracuse Univ., 24 AD3d 1315, 1316 [2005]). In support ofthe motion, plaintiffs submitted the deposition testimony of plaintiff, in which he testified thatthere were no operable safety devices available for his use on the work site that day. Inopposition, defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact whether plaintiff's own actions werethe sole proximate cause of the accident (see generally Cahill v Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth., 4 NY3d35, 39 [2004]; Lovall v GravesBros., Inc., 63 AD3d 1528, 1529 [2009]). Contrary to defendant's contention, whetherplaintiff was negligent in using the A-frame ladder in the closed position is irrelevant inasmuchas "contributory negligence will not exonerate a defendant who has violated [Labor Law §240 (1)] and proximately caused a plaintiff's injury" (Blake v Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of N.Y. City, 1 NY3d 280,286 [2003]; see Whalen v ExxonMobilOil Corp., 50 AD3d 1553 [2008]).[*2]
We reject defendant's further contention that plaintiff wasnot engaged in an activity protected by Labor Law § 240 (1) at the time of the accident.Plaintiff's installation of a pipe system for cleaning the tanks constituted a significant physicalchange to the tanks that went beyond routine maintenance, and thus plaintiff was engaged in"altering" structures within the meaning of the statute (§ 240 [1]; see Joblon vSolow, 91 NY2d 457, 465 [1998]; Weininger v Hagedorn & Co., 91 NY2d 958,959-960 [1998], rearg denied 92 NY2d 875 [1998]). Present—Smith, J.P., Fahey,Carni, Green and Gorski, JJ.