Miro v Plaza Constr. Corp.
Annotate this Case[*1] Tom Miro et al., Appellants,
v
Plaza Construction Corp. et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants. (And a Third-Party Action.)
Decided October 23, 2007
Miro v Plaza Constr. Corp., 38 AD3d 454, modified.
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Paul F. McAloon P.C., New York City (Paul F. McAloon of counsel), and Harry I. Katz, P.C., for appellants.
Barry McTiernan & Moore, New York City (Laurel A. Wedinger of counsel), for respondents.
{**9 NY3d at 949} OPINION OF THE COURT
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order modified, without costs, by denying summary judgment to defendants as to the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and, as so modified, affirmed, and certified question answered in the negative. Assuming that the ladder was unsafe, it is not clear from the record how easily a replacement ladder could have been procured.
Concur: Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.