Berman v. Franchised Distributors, Inc.
Opinion of the Court
The plaintiff made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) by establishing that the statute was violated and that the violation was a proximate cause of his injuries (see Robinson v East Med. Ctr., LP, 6 NY3d 550, 554-555 [2006]; Klein v City of New York, 89 NY2d 833 [1996]; Leconte v 80 E. End Owners Corp., 80 AD3d 669 [2011]; Ricciardi v Bernard Janowitz Constr. Corp., 49 AD3d 624 [2008]; Rudnik v Brogor Realty Corp., 45 AD3d 828 [2007]; Cordova v 360 Park Ave. S. Assoc., 33 AD3d 750 [2006]; Rivera v Dafna Constr. Co., Ltd., 27 AD3d 545 [2006]; Sinzieri v Expositions, Inc., 270 AD2d 332 [2000]; Bryan v City of New York, 206 AD2d 448 [1994]).
However, in opposition, the defendants raised triable issues of fact as to whether they provided a proper safety device and whether the conduct of the plaintiff, including his alleged consumption of alcohol prior to and during the time that he was working (see Moran v 200 Varick St. Assoc., LLC, 80 AD3d 581 [2011]; Bondanella v Rosenfeld, 298 AD2d 941 [2002]; Podbielski v KMO-361 Realty Assoc., 294 AD2d 552 [2002]; Sergeant v Murphy Family Trust, 284 AD2d 991 [2001]), was the sole
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.