NUNEZ v. BERTELSMAN PROP

Inasmuch as the evidence demonstrates that plaintiff fell down a staircase without handrails connecting two levels of scaffolding, there is no question that his injuries were at least partially attributable to defendant's failure to take statutorily mandated safety measures to protect him from risks arising from an elevation differential, and thus that grounds for the imposition of liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240(1) were established (see Boss v. Integral Constr. Corp., 249 A.D.2d 214). That plaintiff's fall may also have been attributable to the presence of cleaning liquid on the staircase does not take the case out of the ambit of Labor Law § 240(1) or create any triable issue as to whether defendant is liable thereunder (see Rizzo v. Hellman Elec. Corp., 281 A.D.2d 258; Murphy v. Islat Assocs. Graft Hat Mfg. Co., 237 A.D.2d 166; Robinson v. NAB Constr. Corp., 210 A.D.2d 86).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.