SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1369 

CA 11-00457 

PRESENT: FAHEY, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, GREEN, AND GORSKI, JJ. 

 

JEFFREY DIPALMA, CLAIMANT-RESPONDENT, 

 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

STATE OF NEW YORK, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

(CLAIM NO. 111910.) 

 

RUPP, BAASE, PFALZGRAF, CUNNINGHAM & COPPOLA, LLC, BUFFALO (R. ANTHONY

RUPP, III, OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

CANTOR, LUKASIK, DOLCE & PANEPINTO, P.C., BUFFALO (STEPHEN C. HALPERN

OF COUNSEL), FOR CLAIMANT-RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Court of Claims (Jeremiah J.

Moriarty, III, J.), dated November 26, 2010 in a personal injury

action. The judgment determined defendant to be 100% liable pursuant

to Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6). 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Claimant commenced this Labor Law and common-law

negligence action seeking damages for injuries he sustained when a

large “skid box” containing concrete debris slid off of a forklift and

struck him. Following the liability portion of a bifurcated trial,

the Court of Claims determined that defendant, the property owner, was

liable for claimant’s injuries pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1) and §

241 (6). Defendant contends that the court should have applied the

falsus in uno doctrine and discredited claimant’s trial testimony

concerning the way in which the accident occurred because that

testimony differed in some respects from claimant’s deposition

testimony. We reject that contention. The falsus in uno doctrine

permits a factfinder to disregard entirely the testimony of a witness

who has willfully testified falsely with respect to any material fact. 

The doctrine, however, is “not mandatory,” and the court is free to

credit any part of a witness’s testimony that it deems true and

disregard what it deems false (People v Johnson, 225 AD2d 464, 464;

see Accardi v City of New York, 121 AD2d 489, 490-491). The

inconsistencies identified by defendant are not so significant as to

render claimant’s trial testimony incredible as a matter of law, and

the court’s determination to credit that testimony, at least in part,

is entitled to deference (see Ring v State of New York, 8 AD3d 1057,

lv denied 3 NY3d 608; Goncalves v State of New York, 1 AD3d 914; see

generally Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of
-2- 1369 

CA 11-00457 

Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499). We note that claimant’s trial testimony

was consistent with that of the other witnesses who were present when

the accident occurred. 

Defendant further contends that Labor Law § 240 (1) is

inapplicable because there was no significant height differential

between the skid box and the platform onto which it fell, where

claimant was working at the time of the accident. We reject that

contention. The “core premise” of our Labor Law § 240 (1)

jurisprudence is “that a defendant’s failure to provide workers with

adequate protection from reasonably preventable, gravity-related

accidents will result in liability” (Wilinski v 334 East 92nd Hous.

Dev. Fund Corp., 18 NY3d 1, 4). Here, similar to the plaintiff in

Wilinski, claimant “suffered harm that ‘flow[ed] directly from the

application of the force of gravity’ ” to the object that struck him

(id.). Moreover, “the single decisive question is whether plaintiff’s

injuries were the direct consequence of a failure to provide adequate

protection against a risk arising from a physically significant

elevation differential” (Runner v New York Stock Exch., Inc., 13 NY3d

599, 603), and the experts who testified on behalf of both parties

agreed that the failure to use a protective device to secure the skid

box to the forklift was improper. Although the skid box fell only one

or two feet before it struck claimant, in light of the weight of the

skid box and its contents, as well as the potential harm that it could

cause, it cannot be said that the elevation differential was de

minimis (see id. at 605). 

We also reject defendant’s contention that the court erred in

determining that it was liable under Labor Law § 241 (6). The section

241 (6) cause of action was based on an alleged violation of 12 NYCRR

23-2.1 (b), pursuant to which “[d]ebris shall be handled and disposed

of by methods that will not endanger any person employed in the area

of such disposal or any person lawfully frequenting such area.” We

have previously held that 12 NYCRR 23-2.1 (b) is sufficiently specific

to support liability under section 241 (6) (see Coleman v ISG

Lackawanna Servs., LLC, 74 AD3d 1825; Kvandal v Westminster Presbyt.

Socy. of Buffalo, 254 AD2d 818). It is undisputed that claimant was

injured while in the process of removing debris and, contrary to

defendant’s contention, it is not necessary for claimant to have been

struck by debris for the regulation to apply (see Coleman, 74 AD3d

1825). In any event, the record contains evidence that claimant was

in fact struck by debris that fell out of the skid box, in addition to

the skid box itself. 

Entered: December 30, 2011 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court