Case ID: ad3d_157/html/0537-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jhonny Gutierrez, Respondent, v Harco Consultants Corp. et al., Appellants. (And a Third-Party Action.)
    [67 NYS3d 624]
   Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Cynthia S. Kern, J.), entered February 9, 2017, which, to the extent appealed from, granted plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, and denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the section 240 (1) claim, unanimously modified, on the law, to deny plaintiff’s motion, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

According to plaintiff’s testimony in this action, he was exposed to elevation-related hazards (see Wilinski v 334 E. 92nd Hous. Dev. Fund Corp., 18 NY3d 1, 9 [2011]). Assuming that the piece of rebar that allegedly struck plaintiff weighed what defendants claimed it weighed, it still presented an elevation-related risk even if it may have traveled only a short distance before striking plaintiff (see Marrero v 2075 Holding Co. LLC, 106 AD3d 408, 409 [1st Dept 2013]; Cardenas v One State St., LLC, 68 AD3d 436, 437 [1st Dept 2009]). We reject defendants’ contention that the rebar being passed to plaintiff did not require a safety device of the type contemplated by Labor Law § 240 because it was being carried by hand (see e.g. Rutkowski v New York Convention Ctr. Dev. Corp., 146 AD3d 686 [1st Dept 2017]). However, plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment as to liability on the claim under section 240 (1) because the records of his medical treatment create an issue of fact as to whether his injury was incurred in the manner described in his testimony.

Concur—Friedman, J.P., Mazzarelli, Kapnick, Webber and Moulton, JJ.