Nunez v City of New York
2010 NY Slip Op 00237 [69 AD3d 696]
January 12, 2010
Appellate Division, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
As corrected through Wednesday, March 10, 2010


George Nunez et al., Respondents,
v
City of New York, Appellant.

[*1] Wallace D. Gossett, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Lawrence A. Silver and Lawrence Heisler of counsel), for appellant. Lawrence Perry Biondi, Garden City, N.Y. (Lisa M. Comeau of counsel), for respondents.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Miller, J.), dated June 16, 2008, which granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In opposition to the plaintiffs' prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]), the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the injured plaintiff's own actions were the sole proximate cause of the accident (see Blake v Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of N.Y. City, 1 NY3d 280, 290-291 [2003]; Rico-Castro v Do & Co N.Y. Catering, Inc., 60 AD3d 749, 750 [2009]; Santo v Scro, 43 AD3d 897, 898-899 [2007]; Pichardo v Aurora Contrs., Inc., 29 AD3d 879, 881 [2006]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). Covello, J.P., Santucci, Chambers and Hall, JJ., concur. [Prior Case History: 20 Misc 3d 1103(A), 2008 NY Slip Op 51201(U).]