ERNEST THOMAS plf-ap, v. GOLDMAN SACHS HEADQUARTERS, LLC def-res

9995. ERNEST THOMAS plf-ap, v. GOLDMAN SACHS HEADQUARTERS, LLC def-res — Sacks and Sacks, LLP, New York (Scott N. Singer of counsel), for ap — Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP, New York (Ellyn B. Wilder of counsel), for res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Cynthia S. Kern, J.), entered May 31, 2012, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's Labor Law §241(6) claim, modified, on the law, to deny the motion to the extent the Labor Law §241(6) claim is based on Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) §23-1.7(e) (1), and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

9995. ERNEST THOMAS plf-ap, v. GOLDMAN SACHS HEADQUARTERS, LLC def-res — Sacks and Sacks, LLP, New York (Scott N. Singer of counsel), for ap — Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP, New York (Ellyn B. Wilder of counsel), for res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Cynthia S. Kern, J.), entered May 31, 2012, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s Labor Law §241(6) claim, modified, on the law, to deny the motion to the extent the Labor Law §241(6) claim is based on Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) §23-1.7(e) (1), and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The motion court erred when it dismissed plaintiff’s Labor Law §241(6) claim to the extent it is based on Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) §23-1.7(e)(1), which states that “[a]ll passageways shall be kept free from… conditions which could cause tripping.” While plaintiff’s testimony suggests that he tripped on overlapping Masonite placed five or six feet away from a doorway, his testimony also establishes that his foot then slid into a gap in the floor approximately 8 to 10 inches wide and 12 to 18 inches deep directly in front of the doorway. He then fell into a glass wall. Further, a field supervisor testified that plywood should have been used to cover the gap on the floor since Masonite was not strong enough to provide adequate support. Given that the gap in the floor was directly in front of the doorway, plaintiff raised an issue of fact as to whether the proximate cause of his injury was a tripping hazard within a passageway (see Jara v. New York Racing Assn., Inc., 85 AD3d 1121 [2d Dept 2011]; Kerins v. Vassar Coll., 293 AD2d 514 [2d Dept 2002]).

ERNEST THOMAS plf-ap, v. GOLDMAN SACHS HEADQUARTERS, LLC def-res

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal