Majority
Order, Supreme
In view of plaintiffs admission in his deposition testimony that for no particular reason he misused the A-frame ladder from which he fell despite specific, repeated and recent instructions from his employer respecting the ladder’s proper and improper use, defendant’s motion, based on the recalcitrant worker ^defense, for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs Labor Law § 240 (1) claim was properly granted (cf. Jamil v Concourse Enters., 293 AD2d 271 , 273 [2002]). Plaintiffs attempt to create a triable issue through the submission of a self-serving, postdeposition affidavit contradicting his prior testimony was properly rejected by the motion court (see Perez v Bronx Park S. Assoc., 285 AD2d 402 , 404 [2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 610 [2002]). Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Buckley, Rosenberger and Marlow, JJ.
Cases cited
- Jamil v. Concourse Enterprises, Inc. 293 AD2d 271 at 273 p. 208
- Perez v. Bronx Park South Associates 285 AD2d 402 at 404 p. 208