Andrade v Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth.

Andrade v Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth. 2008 NY Slip Op 04437 [51 AD3d 517] May 15, 2008 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, July 16, 2008

Arlindo Andrade, Appellant,
v
Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Authority, Doing Business as MTA Bridges & Tunnels, et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant. (And Other Actions.)

—[*1] Arnold E. DiJoseph, III, New York, for appellant.

Law Offices of Kenneth Arthur Rigby, PLLC, New York (Kenneth Arthur Rigby of counsel), for Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Authority and Perini Contracting, respondents.

Ahmuty, Demers & McManus, Albertson (Brendan T. Fitzpatrick of counsel), for Warde Electric Contracting, Inc., respondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Salman, J.), entered August 17, 2006, inter alia, dismissing plaintiff's claims under Labor Law § 240 (1), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

There is no dispute that at the time of the accident plaintiff had completed his work of painting the archway of a bridge, and that the proper safety devices necessary to complete that work had been provided and did not fail to work. Thus, the hazard posed by the hole in the sidewalk of the bridge into which plaintiff fell while exiting the bridge was unrelated to the risk that brought about the need for the safety devices in the first place. Accordingly, there is no section 240 (1) liability (see Narducci v Manhasset Bay Assoc., 96 NY2d 259, 267 [2001]; Nieves v Five Boro A.C. & Refrig. Corp., 93 NY2d 914, 916 [1999]). The additional relief plaintiff seeks is [*2]unnecessary in view of this Court's prior order reinstating certain of his negligence claims (35 AD3d 256, 257 [2006]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, Sweeny and Moskowitz, JJ.