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.