Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012

Carchipulla v. 6661 Broadway Partners, LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided May 10, 2012

95 A.D.3d 573; 945 N.Y.S.2d 4

Cases that cite this one

15 later published cases cite this decision.

Jackson v. 501 Madison-Sutton LLC (New York Supreme Court, New York County 2025)
Soriano v. St. Mary's Indian Orthodox Church of Rockland, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Soriano v. St. Mary's Indian Orthodox Church of Rockland, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Riera v. New York City Hous. Auth. (New York Supreme Court, New York County 2025)
Valladares v. Henry V. Murray Senior, LLC (New York Supreme Court, New York County 2024)
Guzman v. 170 West End Avenue Associates (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Guzman v. 170 West End Avenue Associates (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Kuras v. Cornell University (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Kuras v. Cornell University (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Ross v. 1510 Associates LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Ross v. 1510 Associates LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Fanning v. Rockefeller University (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Fanning v. Rockefeller University (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Lizama v. 1801 University Associates, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Lizama v. 1801 University Associates, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kibbie F. Payne, J.), entered October 20, 2011, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and granted plaintiffs cross motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff established his prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by showing that defendant’s failure to provide an adequate safety device enumerated in Labor Law § 240 (1) proximately caused him to fall off a ladder, injuring him (see Orellano v 29 E. 37th St. Realty Corp., 292 AD2d 289 [2002]). Plaintiff was not required to present evidence of a specific structural defect in the ladder (see Lipari v AT Spring, LLC, 92 AD3d 502, 503-504 [2012]; Orellano, 292 AD2d at 290-291). Contrary to defendant’s unpreserved contention, there is no tri*574able issue of fact about whether plaintiffs negligence was the sole proximate cause of the accident, given that there is no evidence that he fell because he simply lost his footing (see Ervin v Consolidated Edison of N.Y., 93 AD3d 485 [2012]; Lipari, 92 AD3d at 504). Rather, plaintiffs uncontradicted testimony was that the ladder shook and fell while plaintiff was standing on it.

Defendant failed to preserve its arguments that the court should have dismissed plaintiffs common law negligence and Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) claims. In any event, defendant’s contentions regarding those claims are academic in light of the grant of plaintiffs cross motion for partial summary judgment on liability (see Henningham v Highbridge Community Hous. Dev. Fund Corp., 91 AD3d 521, 522 [2012]; Auriemma v Biltmore Theatre, LLC, 82 AD3d 1, 12 [2011]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Andrias, Catterson, Acosta and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Motion for a stay of trial pending appeal denied.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.