The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. Plaintiff was struck by a falling beam which should have been secured. The fact that plaintiff did not know where the beam came from did not preclude summary judgment:
Plaintiff’s proof showed that the support beam was a load that required securing for the purposes of the undertaking … .Further, the elevated platform was not guarded by a safety device such as netting or enclosure that would have prevented the beam from falling on plaintiff … .
While plaintiff and his coworker did not actually witness where the beam came from, plaintiff “is not required to show the exact circumstances under which the object fell,” provided he can demonstrate that the lack of a protective device called for under Labor Law § 240(1) proximately caused his injuries … A plaintiff’s prima facie case is “not dependent on whether he had observed what had hit him, or whether the object in question was dropped or fell in some other manner ” … . Fromel v W2005/Hines W. Fifty-Third Realty, LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 05828, First Dept 11-21-24
Practice Point: Being struck by an unsecured falling object, and the failure to provide protection from falling objects, may warrant summary judgment on a Labor law 240(1) cause of action.