| Pritchard v Tully Constr. Co., Inc. |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 01634 [82 AD3d 730] |
| March 1, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Stephen Pritchard et al., Appellants, v Tully ConstructionCo., Inc., Respondent. |
—[*1] Cartafalsa, Slattery, Turpin & Lenoff, New York, N.Y. (B. Jennifer Jaffee of counsel), forrespondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an orderof the Supreme Court, Queens County (Cullen, J.), dated April 16, 2010, which denied theirmotion for summary judgment on the issue of liability on so much of the complaint as alleged aviolation of Labor Law § 240 (1).
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the plaintiffs' motion forsummary judgment on the issue of liability on so much of the complaint as alleged a violation ofLabor Law § 240 (1) is granted.
The plaintiff Stephen Pritchard, a dock builder employed on a project to reconstruct aviaduct, was injured when he was struck by a motor dropped by two of his coworkers. Accordingto the injured plaintiff, the accident occurred when his coworkers were attempting to attach themotor, which weighed 300 to 350 pounds, to the end of a 20-foot-high pipe. The injured plaintiffhad been stationed by his supervisor approximately two to three feet beneath the motor, in orderto bolt the bottom of the motor to the pipe. It is undisputed that the motor was not secured by ahoist or other safety device, and that the injured plaintiff's coworkers were attempting to lift itand position it using only their hands. Following the accident, the injured plaintiff and his wife,suing derivatively, commenced this action against the defendant general contractor seeking, interalia, to recover damages for violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). After depositions had beenconducted, the plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability on so much of thecomplaint as alleged a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court denied theplaintiffs' motion, and we reverse.
The plaintiffs made a prima facie showing of their entitlement to judgment as a matter of lawon the issue of liability on so much of the complaint as alleged a violation of Labor Law §240 (1). The injured plaintiff was engaged in work within the ambit of the statute because itsubjected him to the risk of harm directly flowing from the application of the force of gravity toan object (see Runner v New YorkStock Exch., Inc., 13 NY3d 599, 604 [2009]; Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec.Co., 81 NY2d 494, 501 [1993]), [*2]and the motor which fellon him was an object that "required securing for the purposes of the undertaking" beingperformed (Narducci v Manhasset Bay Assoc., 96 NY2d 259, 268 [2001]; see Outar v City of New York, 5 NY3d731, 732 [2005]; Mora v BostonProps., Inc., 79 AD3d 1109 [2010]; Lucas v Fulton Realty Partners, LLC, 60 AD3d 1004, 1006 [2009];Salinas v Barney Skanska Constr.Co., 2 AD3d 619, 621-622 [2003]). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the nature ofthe work being performed at the time of the accident posed a significant risk that the motorweighing 300 to 350 pounds would fall while workers were lifting and attempting to position iton the end of the pipe and, thus, the defendant was obligated to provide appropriate safetydevices to hoist and secure this heavy object (see Cardenas v One State St., LLC, 68 AD3d 436, 437 [2009];Lucas v Fulton Realty Partners, LLC, 60 AD3d at 1006; Salinas v Barney SkanskaConstr. Co., 2 AD3d at 621-622).
In opposition to the motion, the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Since thedefendant failed to provide appropriate safety devices for hoisting and securing the motor, theinjured plaintiff's alleged negligence in failing to use another type of safety device, which wouldnot have prevented the motor from falling, could not have been the sole proximate cause of theaccident (see Mora v Boston Props.,Inc., 79 AD3d 1109 [2010]; Ortiz v 164 Atl. Ave., LLC, 77 AD3d 807, 809 [2010]; Zong Mou Zou v Hai Ming Constr.Corp., 74 AD3d 800, 801 [2010]). Mastro, J.P., Dillon, Eng and Sgroi, JJ., concur.