From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Morrison v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 10, 2003
306 A.D.2d 86 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

1347

June 10, 2003.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Faviola Soto, J.), entered February 10, 2003, which, in an action for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff laborer when he fell while descending a scaffold, granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as to liability on his cause of action under Labor Law § 240(1), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Anthony C. Crasto, for plaintiff-respondent.

Peter E. Vairo, for defendants-appellants.

Before: Nardelli, J.P., Tom, Andrias, Lerner, JJ.


Defendants' liability was established as a matter of law by the fact that the scaffold they provided plaintiff, which admittedly had no guard rails, safety nets or lifelines, did not prevent plaintiff from falling (see Laquidara v. HRH Constr. Corp., 283 A.D.2d 169, citing, inter alia,Gordon v. Eastern Ry. Supply, 82 N.Y.2d 555, 561-562). It does not avail defendants to assert that plaintiff did not use the ladder they provided to go up and down the scaffold, absent evidence that plaintiff disregarded an immediate, specific instruction to use the ladder (see Smizaski v. 784 Park Ave. Realty, 264 A.D.2d 364, 367; Crespo v. Triad, Inc., 294 A.D.2d 145, 147). We have considered defendants' other arguments and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

Morrison v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 10, 2003
306 A.D.2d 86 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

Morrison v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:JAMES MORRISON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, ET AL.…

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

Date published: Jun 10, 2003

Citations

306 A.D.2d 86 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
759 N.Y.S.2d 863

Citing Cases

Zukowski v. Metro. Transp. Auth. of N.Y.

fety devices was a proximate cause of his fail, and there was no reasonable view of the evidence to support…

Zapata v. 41 Madison L.P.

"[T]he duty to see that safety devices are furnished and employed rests on the employer in the first…