Reprinted from Westlaw with permission of Thomson Reuters. If you wish to check the currency of this case by using KeyCite on Westlaw, please visit www.westlaw.com.
Brandl v. Ram Builders, Inc.
7 A.D.3d 655, 777 N.Y.S.2d 511
NY,2004.
7 A.D.3d 655777 N.Y.S.2d 511, 2004 WL 1109479, 2004 N.Y. Slip Op. 03966
Gary Brandl et al., Respondents
v
Ram Builders, Inc., Appellant, et al., Defendants. (And a Third-Party Action.)
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York
May 17, 2004
CITE TITLE AS: Brandl v Ram Bldrs., Inc.
HEADNOTE
Labor
Safe Place to Work
Where plaintiff stepped backwards into unprotected opening in floor of home he was renovating and fell from ground floor to basement, plaintiffs were entitled to summary judgment on liability pursuant to Labor Law 240 (1) since plaintiff fell through uncovered opening, no safety device was in place to protect him from uncovered opening and violation was proximate cause of injuries he allegedly sustained; accident was result of elevation-related hazard within meaning of statute, and plaintiff's actions cannot be considered sole proximate cause of accident.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Ram Builders, Inc., appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Winick, J.), dated March 10, 2003, as granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability pursuant to Labor Law 240 (1) and denied its cross motion for summary judgment dismissing that cause of action.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The injured plaintiff stepped backwards into an un-protected opening in the floor of a home he was re-novating and fell from the ground floor to the base-ment. The plaintiffs established their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment on the issue of liability pursuant to Labor Law 240 (1) by submitting evidence that the injured plaintiff fell through an uncovered opening, that no safety device was in place to protect him from the uncovered opening and that this violation was the proximate cause of the injuries he allegedly sustained (see *656 Peter v Nisseli Realty Co., 300 AD2d 289 [2002]). Contrary to the appel-lant's contention, the accident was the result of an elevation-related hazard within the meaning of Labor Law 240 (1) (see Rocovich v Consolidated Edison Co., 78 NY2d 509 [1991]; Lardaro v New York City Bldrs. Group, 271 AD2d 574 [2000]; Carpio v Tish-man Constr. Corp. of N.Y., 240 AD2d 234 [1997]). Moreover, the injured plaintiff's actions cannot be considered the sole **2 proximate cause of the acci-dent (see Clark v Fox Meadow Bldrs., 214 AD2d 882 [1995]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability pursuant to Labor Law 240 (1) and denied the appellant's cross motion for sum-mary judgment dismissing that cause of action.
The appellant's remaining contentions are without merit. Florio, J.P., Townes, Cozier and Mastro, JJ., concur.
Copr. (c) 2010, Secretary of State, State of New York
NY,2004.
Brandl v Ram Bldrs., Inc.
7 A.D.3d 655
END OF DOCUMENT
