| Singh v City of New York |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 00099 [113 AD3d 605] |
| January 8, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Satnam Singh et al.,Appellants-Respondents, v City of New York et al.,Respondents-Appellants. |
—[*1] Armienti, DeBellis, Guglielmo & Rhoden, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Karen S. Drotzerand Matthew A. Windman of counsel), for respondents-appellants.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, aslimited by their brief, from so much of (1) an order of the Supreme Court, RichmondCounty (Fusco, J.), dated February 28, 2012, as denied their motion for summaryjudgment on the issue of liability on the cause of action alleging a violation of LaborLaw § 240 (1), and (2) an order of the same court dated August 12, 2012, asdenied their motion for leave to reargue their motion for summary judgment on the issueof liability, and the defendants cross-appeal from so much of the order dated February28, 2012, as denied that branch of their cross motion which was for summary judgmentdismissing the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1).
Ordered that the appeal from the order dated August 12, 2012, is dismissed, withoutcosts or disbursements, as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument; and it isfurther,
Ordered that the order dated February 28, 2012, is affirmed insofar as appealed andcross-appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
The injured plaintiff fell from a ladder while performing renovation work in theschool library located at P.S. 3 on Staten Island. To make a prima facie showing ofliability under Labor Law § 240 (1), a plaintiff must establish that the statute wasviolated and that the violation was a proximate cause of his or her injuries (see Blake v Neighborhood Hous.Servs. of N.Y. City, 1 NY3d 280, 287 [2003]). This showing may be made with"evidence that the subject ladder was defective or inadequately secured and that thedefect, or the failure to secure the ladder, was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff'sinjuries" (Melchor v Singh,90 AD3d 866, 868 [2011]; see Canas v Harbour at Blue Point Home Owners Assn., Inc.,99 AD3d 962, 963 [2012]; Ordonez v C.G. Plumbing Supply Corp., 83 AD3d 1021[2011]).
Here, the plaintiffs failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as amatter of law on the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action. The mere fact that theinjured plaintiff fell from a ladder does not, in and of itself, establish that properprotection was not provided (see Blake v Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of N.Y.City, 1 NY3d at 288; Delahaye v Saint Anns School, 40 [*2]AD3d 679 [2007]; Alava v City of New York, 246AD2d 614, 615 [1998]). There are triable issues of fact as to whether the subject ladderwas inadequately secured and whether the injured plaintiff's actions were the soleproximate cause of the accident (see Blake v Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of N.Y.City, 1 NY3d at 288-289; Schick v 200 Blydenburgh, LLC, 88 AD3d 684 [2011];Delahaye v Saint Anns School, 40 AD3d at 682). For similar reasons, thedefendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of lawon that branch of their cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing theLabor Law § 240 (1) cause of action.
Accordingly, Supreme Court properly denied the motion and cross motion forsummary judgment. Eng, P.J., Dillon, Sgroi and Miller, JJ., concur. [Prior CaseHistory: 2012 NY Slip Op 30445(U).]