11188. BERNARD VERDON plf-res, v. PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY def-ap, BOVIS LEND LEASE def — THE PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY Third-Party plf-res, BOVIS LEND LEASE THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFFS, v. U.S. LUMBER, INC. Third-Party def-ap — THE PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY Second Third-Party plf-res, BOVIS LEND LEASE SECOND THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFFS, v. LOUIS J. GRASMICK LUMBER COMPANY, INC., Second Third-Party def-ap — _ Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney, Ltd., New York (Simon Lee of counsel), for The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and Tishman Construction Corporation of New York, appellants/res — Jacobson & Schwartz, LLP, Jericho (Paul Goodovitch of counsel), for U.S. Lumber, Inc., ap — Law Office of James J. Toomey, New York (Eric P. Tosca of counsel), for Feldman Lumber Industries, Inc., ap — Schenck, Price, Smith & King, LLP, New York (John P. Campbell of counsel), for Louis J. Grasmick Lumber Company, Inc., ap — Sacks and Sacks, LLP, New York (Scott N. Singer of counsel), for Bernard and Mary Verdon, res ——Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Sharon A.M. Aarons, J.), entered January 22, 2013, which, to the extent appealed from, granted plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240(1) claim, denied third-party defendants’ and second third-party defendant’s motions for summary judgment dismissing the third-party and second third-party complaints, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant third-party defendants’ and second third-party defendant’s motions, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment dismissing the third-party and second third-party complaints.
Plaintiff testified that he was injured when the guardrail on the trailing platform on which he was working broke and he fell 14 feet and landed on rebar. This evidence establishes prima facie a violation of Labor Law §240(1), since the protective device, i.e., the guardrail, “‘proved inadequate to shield the injured worker from harm directly flowing from the application of the force of gravity to an object or person’” (see Runner v. New York Stock Exch., Inc., 13 NY3d 599, 604 [2009] [emphasis deleted], quoting Ross v. Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 NY2d 494, 501 [1993]). Plaintiff was not required to prove that the guardrail was defective (see Hamill v. Mutual of Am. Inv. Corp., 79 AD3d 478, 479 [1st Dept 2010]).
