At page 485 Grant of summary judgment renders other claims academic8 citing casesholding that the plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment because the evidence demonstrated that the plaintiff was caused to fall when the unsecured A-frame ladder that he was standing on "suddenly moved
- Rosenblum v. City of New York, 249 A.D.3d 434 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2026).published Because the court properly granted summary judgment to plaintiff on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, the arguments related to plaintiff's Labor Law § 241(6) claim are academic ( see Fanning v Rockefeller Univ. , 106 AD3d 484, 485 [1st Dept 2…
- Valarezo v. HP Jamsta Hous. Dev. Fund Co., 246 A.D.3d 678 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2026).publishedBecause we are granting plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240(1), the arguments related to the Labor Law § 200 and common- law negligence claims are academic ( see Fanning v Rockefeller Univ. , 106 AD3d…
- Travalja v. 135 W. 52nd St. Owner LLC, 232 A.D.3d 503 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2024).publishedIn light of the grant of plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on liability, appellants' arguments regarding plaintiff's claims under Labor Law § 241(6) are academic ( see Fanning v Rockefeller Univ. , 106 AD3d 484, 485 [1st Dept…
- De Souza v. Hudson Yards Constr. II LLC, 231 A.D.3d 614 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2024).publishedFanning v Rockefeller Univ. , 106 AD3d 484, 485 [1st Dept 2013]).THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
- Scanlon v. South St. Seaport LP, 2024 NY Slip Op 33470(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. 2024).unpublished(holding that the plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment because the evidence demonstrated that the plaintiff was caused to fall when the unsecured A-frame ladder that he was standing on "suddenly moved)
- Rodriguez v. BSREP UA Heritage LLC, 181 A.D.3d 537 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2020).published Fund Corp. , 160 AD3d 412 [1st Dept 2018]; Fanning , 106 AD3d at 485).
- Fletcher v. Brookfield Props., 145 A.D.3d 434 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2016).publishedMary’s Indian Orthodox Church of Rockland, Inc., 118 AD3d 524 , 526 [1st Dept 2014]; Fanning at 485).
- DaSilva v. Everest Scaffolding, Inc., 136 A.D.3d 423 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2016).publishedIn light of the foregoing, the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim as against SPS and Archstone and the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims as against Archstone are academic (see Fanning, 106 AD3d at 485).
v.
The Rockefeller University
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Saliann Scarpulla, J.), entered August 13, 2012, which granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), and denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim was properly granted. Plaintiff established prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law through[*485] testimony that when the unsecured ladder on which he was working suddenly moved, he fell, causing him to sustain injury (see Betancur v Lincoln Ctr. for the Performing Arts, Inc., 101 AD3d 429 [1st Dept 2012]; Krejbich v Schimenti Constr. Co., Inc., 94 AD3d 668 [1st Dept 2012]). He was not required to present further evidence that the ladder was defective (see Orellano v 29 E. 37th St. Realty Corp., 292 AD2d 289, 290-291 [1st Dept 2002]).
Defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact by presenting conflicting evidence with regard to whether the A-frame ladder was 6 or 10 feet and whether it was made of wood or fiberglass, since the statute was violated under either description (see Lipari v AT Spring, LLC, 92 AD3d 502, 504 [1st Dept 2012]). Defendants’ argument that plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his accident because he chose a ladder too short for the work he was performing is speculative and thus, fails to raise an issue of fact (see Pichardo v Urban Renaissance Collaboration Ltd. Partnership, 51 AD3d 472, 473 [1st Dept 2008]).
In light of the grant of plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment on liability, defendants’ arguments regarding plaintiffs claims for common-law negligence and Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) are academic (see Carchipulla v 6661 Broadway Partners, LLC, 95 AD3d 573 [1st Dept 2012]). Concur—Friedman, J.E, Richter, Feinman, Gische and Clark, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2012 NY Slip Op 32129(U).]