| Gonzalez v AMCC Corp. |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 07602 [88 AD3d 945] |
| October 25, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Leonardo Gonzalez, Respondent, v AMCC Corp. et al.,Appellants, et al., Defendants. |
—[*1] Gorayeb & Associates, P.C., New York, N.Y. (John M. Shaw of counsel), forrespondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants AMCC Corp. and NewYork City School Construction Authority appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court,Queens County (Kerrigan, J.), dated September 30, 2010, as denied that branch of their motionwhich was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action alleging violations of LaborLaw § 240 (1) insofar as asserted against them and granted that branch of the plaintiff'smotion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the cause of action allegingviolations of Labor Law § 240 (1) insofar as asserted against them.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The plaintiff established his prima face entitlement to summary judgment on the issue ofliability on his Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action insofar as asserted against thedefendants AMCC Corp. and New York City School Construction Authority (hereinaftertogether the appellants). The plaintiff, while in the course of his employment as an apprenticeelectrician, was standing on an unsecured A-frame ladder when the ladder shifted, causing him tofall (see Mingo v Lebedowicz, 57AD3d 491 [2008]; Ricciardi vBernard Janowitz Constr. Corp., 49 AD3d 624 [2008]; Rivera v Dafna Constr. Co., Ltd., 27AD3d 545 [2006]; Schuler v Kings Plaza Shopping Ctr. & Mar., 294 AD2d 556[2002]; Mannes v Kamber Mgt., 284 AD2d 310 [2001]). No safety devices wereprovided that might have prevented the accident (see Rivera v Dafna Constr. Co., Ltd., 27 AD3d 545 [2006]). Thefact that the ladder may have had a brace in the middle to keep it open was immaterial, as theladder was not secured to something stable and was not chocked or wedged in place (seeWasilewski v Museum of Modern Art, 260 AD2d 271 [1999]).
The appellants failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff's conduct wasthe sole proximate cause of the accident (see Durmiaki v International Bus. Machs. Corp., 85 AD3d 960[2011]; Ordonez v C.G. PlumbingSupply Corp., 83 AD3d 1021 [2011]; Chlebowski v Esber, 58 AD3d 662 [2009]), and failed to establishtheir prima facie entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1)cause of action insofar as asserted against them. The Supreme Court [*2]properly granted that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was forsummary judgment on the issue of liability on the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of actioninsofar as asserted against the appellants, and denied the appellants' motion for summaryjudgment dismissing that cause of action. Angiolillo, J.P., Leventhal, Austin and Roman, JJ.,concur.