MARC MESSINA, Plaintiff-Appellant-res, v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK Defendants-Respondents-ap

3395. MARC MESSINA, Plaintiff-Appellant-res, v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK Defendants-Respondents-ap — Hogan & Cassell, LLP, Jericho (Michael D. Cassell of counsel), for appellant-res — Morris Duffy Alonso & Faley, New York (Iryna S. Krauchanka of counsel), for respondents-ap — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Manuel J. Mendez, J.), entered April 27, 2016, insofar as it denied plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on the Labor Law §240(1) claim, and denied defendants' cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law §240(1) claim, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant plaintiff's motion, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. The appeal from said order, to the extent it denied defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law §241(6) claim predicated on Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) §23-1.21(b)(4) (iv), unanimously dismissed, without costs, as academic.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

3395. MARC MESSINA, Plaintiff-Appellant-res, v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK Defendants-Respondents-ap — Hogan & Cassell, LLP, Jericho (Michael D. Cassell of counsel), for appellant-res — Morris Duffy Alonso & Faley, New York (Iryna S. Krauchanka of counsel), for respondents-ap — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Manuel J. Mendez, J.), entered April 27, 2016, insofar as it denied plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on the Labor Law §240(1) claim, and denied defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law §240(1) claim, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant plaintiff’s motion, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. The appeal from said order, to the extent it denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law §241(6) claim predicated on Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) §23-1.21(b)(4) (iv), unanimously dismissed, without costs, as academic.

Plaintiff established his entitlement to partial summary judgment on the Labor Law §240(1) claim through his testimony that he was injured when the A-frame ladder on which he was standing moved underneath him as he applied pressure to it while trying to remove part of the drop ceiling he was demolishing (see Hill v. City of New York, 140 AD3d 568, 570 [1st Dept 2016]; Ausby v. 365 W. End LLC, 135 AD3d 481 [1st Dept 2016]). Plaintiff was not required to show that the ladder was defective or that he actually fell off the ladder to satisfy his prima facie burden (see Hill, 140 AD3d at 570; Reavely v. Yonkers Raceway Programs, Inc., 88 AD3d 561, 565 [1st Dept 2011]).

MARC MESSINA, Plaintiff-Appellant-res, v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK Defendants-Respondents-ap

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal