DECARLO, JUSTINE v. CLYDE BERGEMANN US, INC. ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •            SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
    Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
    19
    CA 11-00816
    PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, LINDLEY, AND GORSKI, JJ.
    JUSTIN DECARLO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
    V                            MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
    CLYDE BERGEMANN US, INC., DOING BUSINESS AS
    CLYDE BERGEMANN EEC, DUNKIRK POWER LLC, PATENT
    CONSTRUCTION SYSTEMS, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS,
    AND RAYMOND C. BELTER, DEFENDANT.
    MAXWELL MURPHY, LLC, BUFFALO (ALAN D. VOOS OF COUNSEL), FOR
    PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT.
    HISCOCK & BARCLAY, LLP, BUFFALO (BRIAN G. MANKA OF COUNSEL), FOR
    DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS CLYDE BERGEMANN US, INC., DOING BUSINESS AS
    CLYDE BERGEMANN EEC, AND DUNKIRK POWER LLC.
    LAW OFFICES OF DOUGLAS S. COPPOLA, BUFFALO (WILLIAM K. KENNEDY OF
    COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT PATENT CONSTRUCTION SYSTEMS.
    Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Joseph R.
    Glownia, J.), entered November 23, 2010 in a personal injury action.
    The order denied plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment.
    It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is
    unanimously affirmed without costs.
    Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this Labor Law and common-law
    negligence action seeking damages for injuries he sustained when he
    fell from a ladder. Supreme Court properly denied plaintiff’s motion
    for partial summary judgment on liability with respect to the Labor
    Law § 240 (1) claim. “A worker injured by a fall from an elevated
    worksite must . . . generally prove that the absence of or defect in a
    safety device was the proximate cause of his or her injuries” (Felker
    v Corning Inc., 90 NY2d 219, 224). Here, while plaintiff submitted
    evidence in support of his motion establishing that the ladder was
    allegedly defective in several respects, he failed to establish that
    any of those defects caused him to fall (see generally Grove v Cornell
    Univ., 17 NY3d 875; Ozimek v Holiday Val., Inc., 83 AD3d 1414, 1415-
    1416; Davis v Brunswick, 52 AD3d 1231, 1232).
    Entered:    January 31, 2012                     Frances E. Cafarell
    Clerk of the Court
    

Document Info

Docket Number: CA 11-00816

Filed Date: 1/31/2012

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/8/2016