CARLOS v. W.H.P. 19 LLC

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 N.Y.2d 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 N.Y.2d 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. Plaintiff's 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 N.Y.2d 290).

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