| Holly v County of Chautauqua |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 00365 [13 NY3d 931] |
| January 19, 2010 |
| Court of Appeals |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| As corrected through Wednesday, March 10, 2010 |
| Larry C. Holly et al., Respondents, v County of Chautauqua et al., Appellants. |
Decided January 19, 2010
Holly v County of Chautauqua, 63 AD3d 1558, reversed.
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Hodgson Russ LLP, Buffalo (Ryan K. Cummings of counsel), for appellants.
Lipsitz Green Scime Cambria LLP, Buffalo (John A. Collins of counsel), for respondents.
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division, insofar as appealed from, should be reversed, with costs, and plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment as to liability on their Labor Law § 240 (1) claim denied. The certified question should be answered in the negative.
While we agree with the Appellate Division that there are no questions of fact regarding proximate cause, triable issues of fact do exist as to whether the scaffolding defendants supplied provided proper protection under Labor Law § 240 (1) (see Blake v Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of N.Y. City, 1 NY3d 280, 288 [2003]; Davis v Brunswick, 52 AD3d 1231, 1232 [4th Dept 2008]).
Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur in memorandum. [*2]
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order, insofar as appealed from, reversed, etc.