From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dahl v. Armor Building Supply

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Feb 7, 2001
280 A.D.2d 970 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

February 7, 2001.

Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Genesee County, Rath, Jr., J. — Summary Judgment.

Pigott, Jr., P. J., Pine, Hurlbutt, Kehoe and Lawton, JJ.


Order unanimously affirmed with costs.

Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). Plaintiffs sustained their initial burden on the motion by demonstrating that Francis Dahl, Jr. (plaintiff) was engaged in a protected activity, the erection of a building or structure ( see, Labor Law § 240), and that his accident involved the elevation-related hazards that the statute was intended to protect against ( see, Gordon v. Eastern Ry. Supply, 82 N.Y.2d 555, 560-561; see generally, Melber v. 6333 Main St., 91 N.Y.2d 759, 762-763). Plaintiffs further established the requisite causal link between the injuries and the violation of defendant's nondelegable duty to ensure that the ladder or some other device (e.g., scaffolding present elsewhere at the site) was "so constructed, placed and operated as to give proper protection" to plaintiff (Labor Law § 240; see, Melber v. 6333 Main St., supra, at 762; Felker v. Corning Inc., 90 N.Y.2d 219, 224; Zimmer v. Chemung County Performing Arts, 65 N.Y.2d 513, 524, rearg denied 65 N.Y.2d 1054). Defendant failed to sustain its burden of raising a triable issue of fact. Defendant's contention that the ladder provided to plaintiff was an adequate safety device lacks merit; the fact that the ladder "tipped" establishes that it was not so "placed * * * as to give proper protection" to plaintiff (Labor Law § 240; see, Felker v. Corning Inc., supra, at 224; see, Pomarzynski v. Park School, 278 A.D.2d 946; Evans v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 277 A.D.2d 874; Adderly v. ADF Constr Corp., 273 A.D.2d 795). Contrary to its further contention, defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact whether the conduct of plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his injuries ( see, Villeneuve v. State of New York, 274 A.D.2d 958; Adderly v. ADF Constr. Corp., supra, at 795).


Summaries of

Dahl v. Armor Building Supply

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Feb 7, 2001
280 A.D.2d 970 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

Dahl v. Armor Building Supply

Case Details

Full title:FRANCIS DAHL, JR., et al., RESPONDENTS, v. ARMOR BUILDING SUPPLY, APPELLANT

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Feb 7, 2001

Citations

280 A.D.2d 970 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
720 N.Y.S.2d 880

Citing Cases

Wirth v. ELO, Inc.

We therefore modify the order accordingly. Plaintiffs met their initial burden on the motion with respect to…

Petit v. Board of Education

According to plaintiff's uncontradicted account of the fall, the ladder tipped or "kicked out" from under…