Opinion
2002-05787
Submitted October 7, 2002.
October 28, 2002.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Parga, J.), dated May 28, 2002, which denied his motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability on his causes of action pursuant to Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6), and 241-a, without prejudice to renew upon completion of discovery.
Ezra and Howe, Elmont, N.Y. (Joel S. Ezra of counsel), for appellant.
White, Quinlan Staley, LLP, Garden City, N.Y. (Lorin A. Donnelly of counsel), for respondent Circuit City Stores, Inc.
Before: NANCY E. SMITH, J.P., LEO F. McGINITY, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, STEPHEN G. CRANE, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is granted.
The plaintiff, a laborer, was employed by the general contractor on a project involving the construction of a new commercial building on property owned by the defendant E.Q.K. Green Acres, LP, and leased by the defendant Circuit City Stores, Inc. The plaintiff was injured when, as he and a co-worker were hanging a plastic curtain wall along the edge of the mezzanine level of the building, he fell more than 19 feet through an uncovered elevator shaft. His motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability was supported by his affidavit, in which he stated, inter alia, that there were no safety devices on site to prevent his fall. He also submitted a sworn statement of a co-worker who witnessed the accident, and records from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. His proof further established that the uncovered, unguarded opening into which he fell violated 12 NYCRR § 23-1.7(b)(1), and Labor Law § 241-a.
The plaintiff made a prima facie showing of his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability (see Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Center, 64 N.Y.2d 851, 853; Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562). The defendants' opposition consisted merely of expressions of hope that discovery would reveal that they had a defense to the action. Thus, the Supreme Court erred in denying the motion with leave to renew upon completion of discovery (see Public Adm'r of Kings County v. Tomassetti, 271 A.D.2d 515; Bryan v. City of New York, 206 A.D.2d 448; cf. Denkensohn v. Davenport, 130 A.D.2d 860, 861).
SMITH, J.P., McGINITY, LUCIANO and CRANE, JJ., concur.