Case Name: Seth Martin, Respondent, v. State of New York, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2017-03-07
Citations: 148 A.D.3d 439
Docket Number: 
Parties: Seth Martin, Respondent, v State of New York, Appellant.
Judges: Concur — Acosta, J.R, Richter, Manzanet-Daniels, Gische and Webber, JJ.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 148
Pages: 439–439

Head Matter:
Seth Martin, Respondent, v State of New York, Appellant.
[47 NYS3d 904]

Opinion:
Order, Court of Claims of the State of New York (David A. Weinstein, J.), entered June 16, 2016, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied the branch of respondent State of New York's motion for summary judgment that sought dismissal of claimant's Labor Law § 241 (6) claims predicated on violations of Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-2.3 (c); 23-8.2 (c) (3) and 23-8.1 (f) (2) (i), unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The Court of Claims correctly decided that an issue of fact exists concerning whether the State provided tag lines for claimant's use in moving the steel I-beam across the Alexander Hamilton Bridge and whether the absence of tag lines was a proximate cause of claimant's injury (see Rizzuto v L.A. Wenger Contr. Co., 91 NY2d 343, 350 [1998]).
Concur — Acosta, J.R, Richter, Manzanet-Daniels, Gische and Webber, JJ.