9592. JOHN MARRERO, plf-ap, v. 2075 HOLDING CO. LLC def-res — Pollack, Pollack, Isaac & DeCicco, New York (Brian J. Isaac of counsel), for ap — McGaw, Alventosa & Zajac, Jericho (Ross P. Masler of counsel), for res — Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Julia I. Rodriguez, J.), entered January 11, 2012, which denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as to liability on his Labor Law §§240(1) and 241(6) claims against defendants 2075 Retail Co., LLC, 2075 Residential Co. LLC, and Gotham Construction Company LLC, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, plaintiff’s motion granted as to his Labor Law §240(1) claim and his Labor Law §241(6) claim predicated on violations of 12 NYCRR 23-2.1(a)(2), and, upon a search of the record, summary judgment granted to defendants 2075 Retail, 2075 Residential and Gotham dismissing the Labor Law §241(6) claims against them based on alleged violations of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(e)(2) and 23-2.1(a) (1).
The motion court erred in denying plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law §240(1) claim. Plaintiff made a prima facie showing that his injuries were caused by a failure to protect against a risk arising from a significant elevation differential. Plaintiff testified that he sustained physical injuries when he was walking across plywood planks covering fresh concrete. The plywood planks buckled and shifted. As a result, an A-frame cart containing Sheetrock and two 500-pound steel beams tipped over toward the plaintiff. The steel beams fell, landing on his left calf and ankle. While the record did not specify the height, the uncontroverted evidence shows that the steel beams fell a short distance from the top of the A-frame cart to plaintiff’s leg. Given the beams’ total weight of 1,000 pounds and the force they were able to generate during their descent, the height differential was not de minimis (see McCallister v. 200 Park, L.P., 92 AD3d 927, 928-929 [2d Dept 2012] [elevation differential was within the scope of the scaffold law when a scaffold on wheels fell on the plaintiff who was at the same level as the scaffold, and it traveled a short distance]; Kempisty v. 246 Spring Street, LLC, 92 AD3d 474, 474 [1st Dept 2012] [an elevation differential cannot be considered de minimis when the weight of the object being hoisted is capable of generating an extreme amount of force, even though it only traveled a short distance]; see also Wilinski v. 334 E. 92nd Hous. Dev. Fund Corp., 18 NY3d 1, 10 [2011] [recovery was permitted under the scaffold law when metal vertical pipes, on the same level as the plaintiff, toppled over on him]; Runner v. New York Stock Exch., Inc., 13 NY3d 599 [2009]).
