8429. KEVINE WADE, plf-res, v. BOVIS LEND LEASE LMB, INC. def-res, 24 EAST 23RD COMMERCIAL, LLC, def, ATLANTIC HOISTING & SCAFFOLDING, LLC, ET AL., def-ap — BOVIS LEND LEASE LMB, INC. Third-Party plf-res, v. CENTURY MAXIM CONSTRUCTION CORP., Third-Party def-res, HIGH RISE HOISTING AND SCAFFOLDING INC., Third-Party def-ap — French & Casey, LLP, New York (Barry Meade of counsel), for ap — LaRock & Perez, LLP, New York (Jason A. Richman of counsel), for Kevine Wade, res — Pillinger Miller Tarallo LLP, Elmsford (Lawrence J. Buchman of counsel), for Bovis Lend Lease LMB, Inc., Slazer Enterprises Owner, LLC, Madison Park Group Owner, LLC, FKF Madison Group Owner, LLC, JMJS 23rd Street Realty Owner, LLC, Slazer Enterprises, LLC and Century Maxim Construction Corp., res — Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Sharon A.M. Aarons, J.), entered October 3, 2011, which denied the motion of defendants Atlantic Hoisting and Scaffolding, LLC and High Rise Hoisting and Scaffolding, Inc. (collectively Atlantic) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims and third-party claims as against them, and granted plaintiff’s cross motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of Atlantic’s liability on the Labor Law §240(1) cause of action, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant Atlantic’s motion to the extent of dismissing the Labor Law §241(6) claim, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. Plaintiff was a passenger in a temporary personnel lift installed by Atlantic at a construction site when the lift became stuck as it was taking plaintiff to his work location. Plaintiff and the other passengers were directed to exit the hoist through an exit in the top. As he emerged onto the top of the hoist, plaintiff was struck by a piece of guide rail that was part of a hoisting mechanism. The guide rail had broken off and fell over 200 feet to where it struck plaintiff.
Partial summary judgment in favor of plaintiff on his Labor Law §240(1) claim was proper. The enumerated safety device, the hoist, failed and was a proximate cause of plaintiff’s injury (see e.g. Miraglia v. H & L Holding Corp., 36 AD3d 456, 457 [1st Dept 2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 703 [2008]; Ben Gui Zhu v. Great Riv. Holding, LLC, 16 AD3d 185 [1st Dept 2005]). In addition, the guide rail was an object that required securing for the purposes of operating the hoist (see e.g. Outar v. City of New York, 5 NY3d 731 [2005]; Narducci v. Manhasset Bay Assocs., 96 NY2d 259, 268 [2001]).
