You are here: / / HERE THE PERMANENT STAIRWAY WHERE PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED, THE SOLE VIABLE...

HERE THE PERMANENT STAIRWAY WHERE PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED, THE SOLE VIABLE MEANS OF ACCESS TO THE WORK SITE, CONSTITUTED A “SAFETY DEVICE” WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240(1); PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the permanent stairway where plaintiff was injured, which had worn or missing treads, was the sole viable means of access to the floors where plaintiff was working. Although another stairway was available, plaintiff was told not to use it because it was used by COVID patients. Therefore plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. The First Department rejected the argument that Labor Law liability was not available because plaintiff was not working on the stairway itself. The First Department also rejected the argument that a permanent stairway is not a statutory safety device:

The statute protects a worker from gravity-related hazards posed by a permanent stairway that “provided the sole means of access to the floors of the building” where the worker was working … . However, the issue of whether a stairway is the sole means of access should not be construed so strictly as to “preclude recovery merely because plaintiff had an alternative means to descend from his work area, especially when that alternative route may have seemed more dangerous than the stairs plaintiff did utilize” … . Here, the only other staircase available to plaintiff at the worksite would have required him to access a stairway used by hospital patients during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, which he was instructed not to use. As a result, under these facts, the purported alternative staircase did not present a viable means of egress for plaintiff, and the staircase plaintiff used was his sole means of access to his work area … . Moreover, the stairs were defective in that the treads were worn out or missing.

We have considered and rejected … the argument that the statute does not cover permanent staircases … . As we recently explained, “permanent staircases are not categorically excluded from Labor Law 240(1) coverage,” and will qualify as a safety device under the Labor Law where the staircase is the sole means accessing the plaintiff’s work area … .

… Supreme Court improperly concluded that this principle applies only in situations where the plaintiff was required to work on the staircase upon which he fell … .

Supreme Court’s … conclusion that a plaintiff using a permanent staircase as a “passageway” will not give rise to Labor Law 240(1) liability is also misplaced … .  Riley v Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Ctr., 2026 NY Slip Op 05241, First Dept 9-10-26

Practice Point: A permanent stairway which is the sole viable means of access to a work site is a “safety device” within the meaning of Labor Law 240(1).

 

You might also like
No Element of Intent in Constructive Possession of Contraband
DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE WET CONDITION OF THE STAIRS IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, UNSIGNED DEPOSITION CONSTITUTED PLAINTIFF’S ADMISSION, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER EMERGENCY DOCTRINE APPLIED TO REAR-END COLLISION.
PLAINTIFF, WHO FELL FROM AN UNSECURED LADDER, WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CLAIM, THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT ON THE LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION WHICH ALLEGED THE LADDER SLIPPED ON A WET FLOOR (FIRST DEPT).
THE HARASSMENT-RELATED SPEECH PROHIBITIONS IN THE ORDER OF PROTECTION DID NOT VIOLATE THE FIRST AMENDMENT BUT THE PROVISION PROHIBITING RESPONDENT FROM DISCSUSSING THE PETITIONER OR THE FAMILY OFFENSE PROCEEDING WAS STRUCK FROM THE ORDER OF PROTECTION AS UNNECESSARY (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO AMEND HIS ANSWER TO ASSERT A GRAVES AMENDMENT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (AVAILABLE TO THE LESSOR OF A VEHICLE); PLAINTIFF WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY THE LATENESS OF THE MOTION (FIRST DEPT). ​
THE CITY IS NOT ENTITLED TO GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION IMMUNITY WHEN ENGAGED IN THE PROPRIETARY FUNCTION OF MAINTAINING ROADS; IN THE ABSENCE OF A STUDY TO DETERMINE THE RISKS OF A HIGHWAY DESIGN, THE CITY IS NOT ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY; THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE ABSENCE OF SIGNS AND ROADWAY MARKINGS WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE INTERSECTION TRAFFIC ACCIDENT (FIRST DEPT).
THE MAJORITY, LAYING OUT ITS FACTUAL FINDINGS IN GREAT DETAIL, AFFIRMED FAMILY COURT’S MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY RULING ALLOWING MOTHER TO RELOCATE WITH THE CHILD; THE TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT ARGUED THE MAJORITY IGNORED SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE WHICH CONFLICTED WITH AND CONTRADICTIED ITS RULINGS, LAYING OUT THAT EVIDENCE IN GREAT DETAIL; ESSENTIALLY THE DISSENT ARGUED THAT THE CONFLICTING AND CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE IGNORED BY THE MAJORITY DEMONSTRATES MOTHER DID NOT MEET HER BURDEN TO DEMONSTRATE RELOCATION WAS IN THE “BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD” (FIRST DEPT).

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 DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE OF A REQUEST TO APPLY FOR RESENTENCING PURSUANT... NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF MENTAL HEALTH (OMH) WAS PROPERLY HELD IN CONTEMPT AND...