Megna v. Tishman Construction Corp.

—Order,

Plaintiff, an elevator helper at a construction site, was injured when a temporary two-step wooden staircase leading to a temporary wooden landing collapsed under his weight and he fell to the ground. As the temporary stairway was being used to facilitate plaintiffs access to a different elevation level, and therefore indisputably an elevation device within the meaning of Labor Law § 240 (1) (see Hargobin v K.A.F.C.I. Corp., 282 AD2d 31 , 35 [2001]; Wescott v Shear, 161 AD2d 925 [1990], appeal dismissed 76 NY2d 846 [1990]), the shortness of the distance of plaintiffs fall — at least two feet according to plaintiff, no more than 16 inches according to defendants — is irrelevant (see Siago v Garbade Constr. Co., 262 AD2d 945 [1999]; Binetti v MKW. St. Co., 239 AD2d 214 , 214-215 [1997]; Norton v Bell & Sons, 237 AD2d 928 , 929 [1997]; see also Rocovich v Consolidated Edison Co., 78 NY2d 509 , 514 [1991]). Furthermore, plaintiffs proof that he fell when the staircase collapsed established a prima facie case of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) (see Greco v Archdiocese of N.Y., 268 AD2d 300 , 301 [2000]), and, there being no evidence that plaintiffs conduct was the sole proximate cause of the accident, the manner in which he fell or how he landed is also irrelevant (see Laquidara v HRH Constr. Corp., 283 AD2d 169 [2001]; Angeles v Goldhirsch, 268 AD2d 217 [2000]). Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Tom, Rosenberger and Gonzalez, JJ.