McCay v J.A. Jones-GMO, LLC
2010 NY Slip Op 05337 [74 AD3d 615]
June 17, 2010
Appellate Division, First Department
As corrected through Wednesday, August 25, 2010


James A. McCay, Respondent,
v
J.A. Jones-GMO, LLC,Defendant, and Columbia University et al., Appellants. (And a Third-Party Action.) TheTrustees of Columbia University in the City of New York et al., Second Third-PartyPlaintiffs-Appellants, v Del Savio Construction Corp., Second Third-PartyDefendant.

[*1]Lewis Scaria & Cote, LLC, White Plains (Deborah A. Summers of counsel), forappellants. Sacks and Sacks, LLP, New York (Scott N. Singer of counsel), forrespondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul G. Feinman, J.), entered February 26, 2010,which, upon granting plaintiff's motion for reargument, granted plaintiff's motion for partialsummary judgment on the issue of defendants-appellants' liability under Labor Law § 240(1), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff's testimony that he was injured when bricks falling from above caused him to stepoff the plywood platform on which he was carrying a bundle of steel rebar beams, and into a holethat was approximately six feet deep and four to five feet wide, suffices to show that his injurieswere caused by an elevation-related risk. For purposes of section 240 (1), it does not availdefendants to argue that the accident was caused by the falling bricks (see Gallagher v New York Post, 14NY3d 83, 86 [2010] [worker propelled into uncovered hole when blade of his saw jammed];Joyce v Rumsey Realty Corp., 17 NY2d 118, 122-123 [1966]). The unsworn hospitalreport on which defendants rely was improperly submitted for the first time in opposition toplaintiff's motion to reargue (see Hughes v Nussbaumer, Clarke & Velzy, 140 AD2d 989[1988]). In any event, the report, which stated that plaintiff was carrying a heavy object at thetime of his [*2]accident, does not conflict with plaintiff's accountthat he fell into a hole. We decline plaintiff's request to search the record for the purpose ofgranting him summary judgment on his Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, which, although asubject of his prior motion for summary judgment, was not a subject of his motion forreargument. Concur—Tom, J.P., Friedman, McGuire, Acosta and RomÁn, JJ.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.