You are here: / / IN THIS LADDER-FALL CASE, CONFLICTING EVIDENCE ABOUT WHETHER A LADDER WAS...
,

IN THIS LADDER-FALL CASE, CONFLICTING EVIDENCE ABOUT WHETHER A LADDER WAS REQUIRED FOR PLAINTIFF’S WORK MANDATED DENIAL OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION; RE: THE LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION, DEFENDANT-OWNER HAD A NONDELEGABLE DUTY TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THE LADDER-SAFETY PROVISIONS OF THE INDUSTRIAL CODE, THE OWNER’S LABOR LAW 241(6) LIABILITY IS NOT BASED UPON CONTROL OF THE WORK SITE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there were questions of fact precluding the award of summary judgment to the defendants on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action in this ladder fall case. There was conflicting evidence whether a ladder was required for the work assigned to plaintiff. In addition, the Labor Law 241(6) cause of action should not have been dismissed on the ground the defendant owner did not exercise control over the worksite because the owner has a nondelegable duty to ensure compliance with the Industrial Code:

Where, as here, “credible evidence reveals differing versions of the accident,” one under which the defendant would be liable and another under which it would not, questions of fact exist making summary judgment inappropriate … . Accordingly, the court should have denied that branch of the defendant’s cross-motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240(1), regardless of the sufficiency of the plaintiffs’ opposition … .

Labor Law § 241(6) imposes a nondelegable duty on “owners and contractors to provide reasonable and adequate protection and safety for workers and to comply with the specific safety rules and regulations promulgated by the Commissioner of the Department of Labor” … . Because an owner’s duty under Labor Law § 241(6) is nondelegable, the Supreme Court incorrectly concluded that the defendant was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 241(6) on the ground that the record was “devoid of any information” that the defendant had “control over the worksite” … . …

12 NYCRR 23-1.21(b)(3)(iv), which requires that ladders “be maintained in good condition” and must not be used if they have “any flaw or defect of material that may cause ladder failure,” is sufficiently specific to support a cause of action under Labor Law § 241(6) …. . Contrary to its contention, the defendant failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that it did not violate this provision. … [Plaintiff] testified that the ladder shook beneath him, and the defendant did not submit evidence of the condition of the specific ladder at issue or the surface on which the ladder was situated … . Under these circumstances, the defendant also failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that it did not violate 12 NYCRR 23-1.21(b)(4)(ii), which provides that “[a]ll ladder footings shall be firm,” and “[s]lippery surfaces and insecure object … . Cabrera v Provident Alpine Partners, L.P., 2025 NY Slip Op 03700,, Second Dept 6-18-25

Practice Point: Here in this ladder-fall case, conflicting evidence about whether a ladder was required for plaintiff’s work mandated denial of defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action.

Practice Point: An owner’s liability under Labor Law 241(6) is based on a nondelegable duty, not on whether the owner controls the work site.

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF ANY DEFECTS IN THE CEILING THAT FELL ON PLAINTIFFS; THE RES IPSA LOQUITUR DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY BECAUSE DEFENDANTS DID NOT HAVE EXCLUSIVE CONTROL OVER THE CONDITION (SECOND DEPT).
Collateral Estoppel Precluded Plaintiff’s Action—Defendant’s Alleged Default Irrelevant
NO EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION FUND TO WHICH ATTORNEY’S CHARGING LIEN COULD ATTACH.
MOTION TO REMOVE A PERSONAL INJURY ACTION FROM CIVIL COURT TO SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED BECAUSE IT WAS NOT ACCOMPANIED BY A REQUEST TO AMEND THE AD DAMNUM CLAUSE, NOTICE OF APPEAL WAS TIMELY BECAUSE DEFENDANT WAS NEVER SERVED WITH A NOTICE OF ENTRY (SECOND DEPT).
Supreme Court Erred In Refusing to Appoint a Guardian—However, Petitioner Was Not the Appropriate Choice for the Guardian
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF MADE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE ON HIS LABOR LAW CAUSES OF ACTION, THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS PREMATURE; PLAINTIFF NOT YET DEPOSED.
DEFENDANT MADE A LEFT TURN IN FRONT OF PLAINTIFF IN VIOLATION OF THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW; PLAINTIFF SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
Seizure of Evidence from the Pocket of the Defendant After a Pat-Down Search on the Street Not Justified Under the “Inevitable Discovery” Exception to the Warrant Requirement—the Doctrine Does Not Apply to “the Very Evidence Obtained in the Illegal Search”—A Justification for the Search and Seizure Not Relied Upon by the People Below Can Not Be Raised on Appeal

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THE CITY OF KINGSTON PROPERLY OPTED IN TO A RENT STABILIZATION REGIME PURSUANT... A POLICE OFFICER DESCRIBED STATEMENTS MADE BY THE VICTIMS BUT THE VICTIMS DID...