MASSO KEBE, plf-res, v. GREENPOINT-GOLDMAN CORP. def-ap, CARLYLE REALTY V, L.P. def

3975. MASSO KEBE, plf-res, v. GREENPOINT-GOLDMAN CORP. def-ap, CARLYLE REALTY V, L.P. def — Mauro Lilling Naparty LLP, Woodbury (Anthony F. DeStefano of counsel), for ap — Edelman, Krasin & Jaye PLLC, Westbury (Allen J. Rosner of counsel), for res — Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Sharon A.M. Aarons, J.), entered August 18, 2016, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as to liability on his Labor Law §240(1) claim as against defendants Greenpoint-Goldman Corp., Greenpoint Goldman SM LLC, GFI Development Company, LLC, Atara Vanderbilt, LLC and Triton Construction Company, LLC, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

3975. MASSO KEBE, plf-res, v. GREENPOINT-GOLDMAN CORP. def-ap, CARLYLE REALTY V, L.P. def — Mauro Lilling Naparty LLP, Woodbury (Anthony F. DeStefano of counsel), for ap — Edelman, Krasin & Jaye PLLC, Westbury (Allen J. Rosner of counsel), for res — Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Sharon A.M. Aarons, J.), entered August 18, 2016, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as to liability on his Labor Law §240(1) claim as against defendants Greenpoint-Goldman Corp., Greenpoint Goldman SM LLC, GFI Development Company, LLC, Atara Vanderbilt, LLC and Triton Construction Company, LLC, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

As the Court of Appeals recently reiterated in O’Brien v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J. (_ NY3d _, 2017 NY Slip Op 02466, *2 [March 30, 2017]), “The fact that a worker falls at a construction site, in itself, does not establish a violation of Labor Law §240(1).” “Rather, liability is contingent upon the existence of a hazard contemplated in section 240(1) and the failure to use, or the inadequacy of, a safety device of the kind enumerated therein” (Narducci v. Manhasset Bay Assoc., 96 NY2d 259, 267 [2001]). However, “[i]n cases involving ladders or scaffolds that collapse or malfunction for no apparent reason,” the Court of Appeals has applied “a presumption that the ladder or scaffolding device was not good enough to afford proper protection” (Blake v. Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of N.Y. City, 1 NY3d 280, 289 n 8 [2003]) — a presumption that the O’Brien Court recognized but found inapplicable to the facts before it, which involved a fall from an exterior stairway.

MASSO KEBE, plf-res, v. GREENPOINT-GOLDMAN CORP. def-ap, CARLYLE REALTY V, L.P. def

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal