PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE STAIRCASE WHERE HE SLIPPED ON ICE WAS THE ONLY MEANS OF ACCESS TO THE WORK SITE; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s summary judgment motion for the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action should not have been granted. Plaintiff slipped on ice on a permanent staircase. A permanent staircase qualifies as a “safety device” only when it is the only means of access to the worksite. Plaintiff failed to prove the “only means of access” element:

Plaintiff failed to establish that the staircase was the sole means of access because he testified that he could have gone up one flight of stairs and then taken the hoist down, which was how he returned to the worksite after his accident. Even if plaintiff established prima facie that the staircase was the sole means of access, defendants raised an issue of fact through the site safety manager’s affidavit, which stated there were additional staircases that plaintiff could have used as well as other hoists in operation at the site at the time of the accident. Ramos v Lendlease (US) Constr. LMB Inc., 2026 NY Slip Op 06394, First Dept 10-29-26

Practice Point: A permanent staircase is a “safety device” within the meaning of Labor Law 240(1) if it is the only means of access to the work site.​

​