From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Singh v. Eisen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 5, 1999
260 A.D.2d 363 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

April 5, 1999

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Price, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff Sohan Singh (hereinafter Singh) fell from a scaffold while painting the exterior of a building owned by the defendant Bernard Eisen and leased by the defendant Giulia Pizzeria Restaurant, Inc.

Singh met his initial burden entitling him to judgment under Labor Law § 240 (1) against the appellants as a matter of law by demonstrating that while painting the subject building at an elevated level, the scaffold upon which he was situated had defective brakes and began to shake, thereby causing him to fall to the ground ( see, Gordon v. Eastern Ry. Supply, 82 N.Y.2d 555; Ross v. Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 N.Y.2d 494; Garcia v. 1122 E. 180th St. Corp., 250 A.D.2d 550; Van Guilder v. Sands Hecht Constr. Corp., 199 A.D.2d 164, 165).

The appellants' claim that material issues of fact exist as to whether Singh's own conduct occasioned his fall from the scaffold was raised for the first time on appeal, and therefore, is unpreserved for appellate review ( see, Jenkins v. Meredith Ave. Assocs., 238 A.D.2d 477, 479; Charles v. City of New York, 227 A.D.2d 429, 430). In any event, "the provisions of [Labor Law] § 240 (1) apply, regardless of [Sohan Singh's] negligence in his use of the scaffold" ( Garcia v. 1122 E. 180th St. Corp., supra, at 551).

The appellants' remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit.

Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, Altman and McGinity, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Singh v. Eisen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 5, 1999
260 A.D.2d 363 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Singh v. Eisen

Case Details

Full title:SOHAN SINGH et al., Respondents, v. BERNARD EISEN et al., Appellants, et…

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

Date published: Apr 5, 1999

Citations

260 A.D.2d 363 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
687 N.Y.S.2d 700

Citing Cases

Tobias v. DiFazio Electric, Inc.

We modify. The plaintiff's contention that Grumman and DiFazio violated Labor Law — 200 and 241(6) is raised…

Reyes v. Arco Wentworth Management Corp.

The obligations under the statute are nondelegable ( see Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 NY2d at…