Benefit of the Doubt as To Plaintiff’s Credibility Staves of Evidence of Inconsistency and Defendants’ Opposition
In a recent decision, the Appellate Division, First Department unanimously affirmed a Supreme Court, New York County decision that granted plaintiff’s partial motion for summary judgment as to his Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action.
In Molina v. 114 Fifth Ave. Assoc., LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 05058, plaintiff was working as a steam fitter at a construction site and had just finished installing a run of fire suppression system piping when a road and shield affixing one of the segments of the pepe to the ceiling broke free and the pipe fell onto his neck and shoulder. Towards the conclusion of discovery, plaintiff moved for summary judgment, and defendants opposed.
In support of their motion, the defendants submitted evidence, including deposition transcripts, that the subject incident was unreported until weeks after the fact and that the accident that caused plaintiff’s injuries may have happened on another date and at another location.
After oral argument, the Supreme Court, New York County granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in a short form order, based on reasoning outlined in the transcript of oral argument, which was not available for review.
Whatever that reasoning was, the Appellate Division, First Department agreed, noting that plaintiff established his entitlement to summary judgment as a matter of law by submitting a coworker’s affidavit, deposition testimony, and employee claim form, showing that his claims involved falling object as well as a fall from an elevation caused by inadequate safety devices. As to the defendant’s opposition, the First Department held that the evidence submitted by defendants failed to impugn plaintiff’s credibility or that of his coworker.
Here we have another example of the First Department giving plaintiff the benefit of the doubt with regard to credibility, despite evidence submitted by defendants. The First Department cites to Ortiz v. Burke Ave. Realty, Inc., 126 A.D.3d 577, 3 N.Y.S.3d 582 (1st Dep’t 2015), which asserts that “unsupported” statements and “speculation” are insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. This is interesting, because here, the defendants submitted evidence that the accident may have happened at another time and location, which, one would thing, would be weighed more heavily, than conflicting narratives as to the specific mechanism of the accident.
The Molina decision can be found here.
For additional information, contact Philip D. Priore, Esq. and/or Michael J. Shields, Esq.
This article was prepared by McCormick & Priore, P.C. to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is in no way intended to provide legal advice or to create an attorney-client relationship. All Rights Reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of McCormick & Priore, P.C.
