Bustamante v. BSD 370 Lexington, L.L.C.

Summary

The New York Appellate Division, Second Department modified an order denying the plaintiff summary judgment in a personal-injury action arising from a Baker scaffold collapse. The court granted summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240(1) and under Labor Law § 241(6) predicated on 12 NYCRR 23-5.18(b), while affirming denial of relief based on the other cited Industrial Code provisions.

Holdings

1. The plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240(1) because he established that the defendants violated the statute and that the violation was a proximate cause of his fall, and the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact.
2. Once the plaintiff established a Labor Law § 240(1) violation and that the violation was a proximate cause of the accident, comparative negligence, if any, was not a defense to liability under that statute.
3. The plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 241(6) insofar as the claim was predicated on 12 NYCRR 23-5.18(b), because he established prima facie that the manually propelled scaffold lacked safety railings and the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact.
4. The plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment on the portions of his Labor Law § 241(6) claim predicated on 12 NYCRR 23-5.1(b), 23-5.1(c)(2), and 23-1.7(e)(2), because he failed to establish prima facie that those provisions applied.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240(1).
2. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment under Labor Law § 241(6) based on alleged violations of 12 NYCRR 23-5.1(b), 23-5.1(c)(2), 23-5.18(b), and 23-1.7(e)(2).
3. Whether comparative negligence could defeat the plaintiff's Labor Law § 240(1) claim after he established a statutory violation and proximate causation.

Disposition

other