| Ortiz v Varsity Holdings, LLC |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 06080 [75 AD3d 538] |
| July 13, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Luis F. Ortiz, Appellant, v Varsity Holdings, LLC, et al.,Respondents. |
—[*1]
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by hisbrief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schmidt, J.), datedDecember 12, 2008, as granted that branch of the defendants' motion which was for summaryjudgment dismissing the third cause of action to recover damages for a violation of Labor Law§ 240 (1), and denied his cross motion, in effect, for summary judgment on the issue ofliability on that cause of action.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
The plaintiff, a laborer, alleges that while he stood on or near the ledge of a six-foot highdumpster, rearranging debris from an apartment renovation project that had been placed therein,he slipped and fell backwards onto the sidewalk below, resulting in injuries. It is undisputed thatthe plaintiff was provided with no safety devices enumerated in Labor Law § 240 (1)during the performance of this work.
We are constrained to affirm the Supreme Court's grant of that branch of the defendants'motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause ofaction and the denial of the plaintiff's cross motion, in effect, for summary judgment on the issueof liability on that cause of action (seeMonterroza v State Univ. Constr. Fund, 56 AD3d 629 [2008]; Georgopulos v Gertz Plaza, Inc., 13AD3d 478 [2004]). Skelos, J.P., Eng, Belen and Austin, JJ., concur.
On the Court's own motion, it is
Ordered that the aggrieved party is granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals, if he beso advised, pursuant to CPLR 5602 (a) (1) (i) from the decision and order of this Courtaffirming, insofar as appealed from, the order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schmidt, J.),dated December 12, 2008, and the following question is certified to the Court of Appeals: Wasthe decision and order of this Court properly made? Questions of law have arisen which, in ouropinion, ought to be reviewed by the Court of Appeals (see CPLR 5713). Skelos, J.P.,Eng, Belen and Austin, JJ., concur.