Case Name: Mowbray Carlos et al., Appellants, v. W.H.P. 19 L. L. C. et al., Respondents
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2001-02-22
Citations: 280 A.D.2d 419
Docket Number: 
Parties: Mowbray Carlos et al., Appellants, v W.H.P. 19 L. L. C. et al., Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 280
Pages: 419–419

Head Matter:
Mowbray Carlos et al., Appellants, v W.H.P. 19 L. L. C. et al., Respondents.
[720 NYS2d 496]

Opinion:
—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard Silver, J.), entered May 30, 2000, which denied plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment as to liability upon their Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and plaintiffs' motion granted.
Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on their Labor Law § 240 (1) claim should have been granted inasmuch as comparative negligence is not a defense to such claim (Bland v Manocherian, 66 NY2d 452, 460-461). The improper placement of the ladder on an uneven sidewalk and the failure to secure it were violations of Labor Law § 240 (1) and, therefore, plaintiff laborer's conduct in continuing to ascend a ladder he knew had been only partially opened was not, as a matter of law, the sole proximate cause of his accident (cf., Weininger v Hagedorn & Co., 91 NY2d 958).
We also reject defendant's argument that there is a factual issue as to whether plaintiff was engaged in work falling within the protective ambit of Labor Law § 240 (1). The argument is not properly before us, having been advanced for the first time on appeal, and, in any event, is without merit. Plaintiffs removal of a sign was an integral part of a larger ongoing project to construct a high-rise apartment building and, as such, was covered under Labor Law § 240 (1) (see, Lombardi v Stout, 80 NY2d 290). Concur — Nardelli, J. R, Williams, Andrias, Wallach and Lerner, JJ.