| Raynor v Quality Plaza Realty, LLC |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 03827 [84 AD3d 774] |
| May 3, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| John Raynor, Appellant, v Quality Plaza Realty, LLC, etal., Respondents. |
—[*1] Baxter, Smith & Shapiro, P.C., Hicksville, N.Y. (Margot L. Ludlam of counsel), forrespondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order ofthe Supreme Court, Nassau County (Woodard, J.), entered August 17, 2010, which denied hismotion for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the cause of action alleging a violationof Labor Law § 240 (1).
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the plaintiff's motion forsummary judgment on the issue of liability on the cause of action alleging a violation of LaborLaw § 240 (1) is granted.
The plaintiff allegedly sustained personal injuries when he fell 17 to 20 feet from anunsecured extension ladder while installing light fixtures in a warehouse. The plaintiff'ssupervisor told him to use an extension ladder to complete the work and helped him set up theladder without providing any means to secure it. Initially, the supervisor braced the extensionladder by holding it while the plaintiff climbed it. Thereafter, the supervisor helped the plaintiffset up the ladder in a different location, again without providing any means to secure it, and leftthe plaintiff alone to complete the work. After the plaintiff climbed the ladder, the top of theunsecured ladder slipped from the ceiling truss on which it was resting and the base of the ladderslid out from underneath the plaintiff, causing both the ladder and the plaintiff to fall to the floor.Under these circumstances, the plaintiff established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as amatter of law on the issue of liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1) (see Boe v Gammarati, 26 AD3d351, 351-352 [2006]; Granillo vDonna Karen Co., 17 AD3d 531, 531 [2005]).
In opposition, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether there was astatutory violation or the plaintiff's conduct was the sole proximate cause of the accident (seeBoe v Gammarati, 26 AD3d at 352; O'Connor v Enright Marble & Tile Corp., 22 AD3d 548, 549[2005]; compare Robinson v East Med.Ctr., LP, 6 NY3d 550, 553-555 [2006]; Blake v Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of N.Y. City, 1 NY3d 280, 291[2003]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiff's motion for summaryjudgment on the issue of liability on the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law§ 240 (1). Rivera, J.P., Dickerson, Lott and Cohen, JJ., concur.