You are here: / Labor Law-Construction Law
,

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, BASED UPON A FALL FROM A SCAFFOLD, PROPERLY GRANTED, DEFENDANT’S ATTEMPTS TO RELY ON AN ALLEGED HEARSAY STATEMENT BY THE PLAINTIFF TO THE EFFECT THAT HE FELL WHEN CLIMBING UP TO THE SCAFFOLD, REJECTED, NO APPLICABLE EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this Labor Law 240 (1) action was properly granted. Plaintiff alleged he fell from a scaffold which did not have railings. Defendant’s attempts (for the first time on appeal) to introduce plaintiff’s alleged hearsay statement that he fell when climbing up to the scaffold were rejected:

It is undisputed that the subject scaffold did not have railings, toe boards, or cross-bracing, and there was no place for plaintiff to tie off his safety harness. As such, plaintiff established a violation of the statute. Moreover, plaintiff testified that the accident occurred when he was on the scaffold, tripped on a block, and fell backward, off the scaffold to the ground, and his worker’s compensation claim also provides that he slipped and fell while on the scaffold. This is sufficient to establish that the violation was a proximate cause of the injury … . …

[Re: plaintiff’s alleged statement:] The business record exception is inapplicable, since defendants have not submitted the incident report for the … accident. The present sense impression exception is also inapplicable, since the out-of-court statement from plaintiff to the foreman that he fell while climbing up the scaffold is not corroborated by independent evidence … . The excited utterance exception does not apply, since defendants have not provided sufficient evidence of plaintiff’s mental state or established that he made the hearsay statement to the foreman under the stress of excitement … . Furthermore, plaintiff’s statement to the foreman does not fall within the declaration against interest exception because plaintiff was available to, and did, testify as a witness; there is no evidence that plaintiff knew the statement was adverse to his interests when it was made; and the supporting circumstances do not attest to its trustworthiness or reliability … . Gomes v Pearson Capital Partners LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 01560, First Dept 3-8-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, BASED UPON A FALL FROM A SCAFFOLD, PROPERLY GRANTED, DEFENDANT’S ATTEMPTS TO RELY ON AN ALLEGED HEARSAY STATEMENT BY THE PLAINTIFF TO THE EFFECT THAT HE FELL WHEN CLIMBING UP TO THE SCAFFOLD, REJECTED, NO APPLICABLE EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE(FIRST DEPT))/EVIDENCE (HEARSAY, LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, BASED UPON A FALL FROM A SCAFFOLD, PROPERLY GRANTED, DEFENDANT’S ATTEMPTS TO RELY ON AN ALLEGED HEARSAY STATEMENT BY THE PLAINTIFF TO THE EFFECT THAT HE FELL WHEN CLIMBING UP TO THE SCAFFOLD, REJECTED, NO APPLICABLE EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE(FIRST DEPT))/HEARSAY (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, (PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, BASED UPON A FALL FROM A SCAFFOLD, PROPERLY GRANTED, DEFENDANT’S ATTEMPTS TO RELY ON AN ALLEGED HEARSAY STATEMENT BY THE PLAINTIFF TO THE EFFECT THAT HE FELL WHEN CLIMBING UP TO THE SCAFFOLD, REJECTED, NO APPLICABLE EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE(FIRST DEPT))

CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING WHETHER A PARTY IS A STATUTORY AGENT OF THE OWNER IN LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6) ACTIONS EXPLAINED, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, STEMMING FROM A FALL FROM A LADDER, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined Supreme Court should not have determined defendant (Rose Associates) was not a statutory agent of the owner in this Labor Law 240 (1) and 24 1 (6) action, explaining the correct criteria. In addition Supreme Court should not have denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action, which was based upon the allegation the ladder plaintiff was on moved:

The motion court erred in determining that Rose Associates is not an agent of defendant owner Continental Towers Condominium. Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) impose absolute liability on owners, contractors, and their agents for a statutory violation resulting in injury, regardless of whether they directed or controlled the work … . Thus…  the test of whether a defendant is a statutory agent subject to liability under those sections is not whether it actually supervised the work, but whether it had the authority to do so … . …

… [T]he court should have granted plaintiff’s cross motion, as the evidence establishes that plaintiff slipped or fell from an unsecured ladder upon which he was working because it moved … . The testimony of plaintiff’s coworker that plaintiff stated he slipped was “not inconsistent with plaintiff’s version that he slipped after the ladder moved” … . Moreover, defendants’ expert affidavits asserting that no force acted upon the ladder that could have caused it to move were speculative. Merino v Continental Towers Condominium, 2018 NY Slip Op 01549, First Dept 3-8-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING WHETHER A PARTY IS A STATUTORY AGENT OF THE OWNER IN LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6) ACTIONS EXPLAINED, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, STEMMING FROM A FALL FROM A LADDER, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED (FIRST DEPT))/STATUTORY AGENT (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING WHETHER A PARTY IS A STATUTORY AGENT OF THE OWNER IN LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6) ACTIONS EXPLAINED, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, STEMMING FROM A FALL FROM A LADDER, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED (FIRST DEPT))/LADDERS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, STEMMING FROM A FALL FROM A LADDER, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED (FIRST DEPT))

, ,

NEW YORK TRANSIT AUTHORITY WAS NOT ENTITLED TO DISMISSAL OF THE LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION ON COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY OR FACTUAL GROUNDS, RELEVANT LAW SUCCINCTLY EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined that the defendant New York State Transit Authority (NYSTA) was not entitled to dismissal of the Labor Law 200 and common law negligence claims on collateral estoppel, governmental immunity, or factual grounds. The decision includes good explanations of all the legal principles involved. Claimants lost summary judgment motions in a lawsuit against other defendants in state court, and then brought this action against the NYSTA in the Court of Claims. The Second Department held that the standards for liability of the NYSTA as the owner of the construction site were not the same as the standards of liability for the defendants in the state action. Therefore the collateral estoppel doctrine did not apply. The court also held that the NYSTA was acting in a proprietary, not a governmental, capacity. Therefore governmental immunity was not invoked:

Regarding whether NYSTA had the authority to exercise supervision or control over the performance of the claimants’ work, we find that it met its prima facie burden of demonstrating that it had no such authority … . In opposition, however, the claimants raised a triable issue of fact regarding NYSTA’s involvement at the work site … . Regarding the alleged dangerous condition of the work site itself, NYSTA, in support of its motion, argued only that it could not be held liable for failing to remediate soil containing chemicals because the claimants’ job was to remedy that very condition. We find that NYSTA failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that the claimants were injured from defective or hazardous conditions that were part of or inherent in the work they were performing… , or from conditions that were readily observable… . In addition, the claimants raised a triable issue of fact as to whether their injuries were caused by a hazardous condition that they were not specifically hired to remediate … . Indeed, whether a dangerous condition is within the scope of the work an employee or contractor is hired to perform is a fact-specific inquiry … . Grasso v New York State Thruway Auth., 2018 NY Slip Op 01453, Second Dept 3-7-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (NEW YORK TRANSIT AUTHORITY WAS NOT ENTITLED TO DISMISSAL OF THE LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION ON COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY OR FACTUAL GROUNDS, RELEVANT LAW SUCCINCTLY EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, NEW YORK TRANSIT AUTHORITY WAS NOT ENTITLED TO DISMISSAL OF THE LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION ON COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY OR FACTUAL GROUNDS, RELEVANT LAW SUCCINCTLY EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))/IMMUNITY (GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY, NEW YORK TRANSIT AUTHORITY WAS NOT ENTITLED TO DISMISSAL OF THE LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION ON COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY OR FACTUAL GROUNDS, RELEVANT LAW SUCCINCTLY EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))/GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY (NEW YORK TRANSIT AUTHORITY WAS NOT ENTITLED TO DISMISSAL OF THE LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION ON COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY OR FACTUAL GROUNDS, RELEVANT LAW SUCCINCTLY EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))/COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL (NEW YORK TRANSIT AUTHORITY WAS NOT ENTITLED TO DISMISSAL OF THE LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION ON COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY OR FACTUAL GROUNDS, RELEVANT LAW SUCCINCTLY EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))/PROPRIETARY FUNCTION (GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY, NEW YORK TRANSIT AUTHORITY WAS NOT ENTITLED TO DISMISSAL OF THE LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION ON COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY OR FACTUAL GROUNDS, RELEVANT LAW SUCCINCTLY EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))/GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION, (GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY, NEW YORK TRANSIT AUTHORITY WAS NOT ENTITLED TO DISMISSAL OF THE LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION ON COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY OR FACTUAL GROUNDS, RELEVANT LAW SUCCINCTLY EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))

PLAINTIFF DID NOT ATTACH HIMSELF TO AN AVAILABLE LIFELINE, QUESTIONS OF FACT PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action was properly denied. Plaintiff fell from a platform. He was wearing a vest and lanyard but did not attach himself to an available lifeline:

Plaintiff Luis Colon was injured when he fell from a makeshift platform while torquing bolts on the Henry Hudson Bridge restoration project. At the time of his fall, plaintiff was wearing a vest and lanyard; however, he did not attach himself to the available lifeline. There are questions of fact on this record concerning whether it was feasible or even practical for Colon to have attached himself to the lifeline or whether another safety device was required and whether it was provided … . Colon v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 2018 NY Slip Op 01436, First Dept 3-6-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PLAINTIFF DID NOT ATTACH HIMSELF TO AN AVAILABLE LIFELINE, QUESTIONS OF FACT PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT))

,

PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED IN A WORK AREA ON THE 16TH FLOOR USED FOR RENOVATION WORK ON THE 41ST FLOOR, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE 16TH FLOOR WAS A CONSTRUCTION AREA WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 241 (6), THE COURT NOTED A LESSEE IS AN OWNER WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 241 (6) (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Kapnick, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s Labor Law 241 (6) action should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff worked for a company hired to renovate building space leased by defendant (Cayre). Cayre’s space was on the 41st and 42nd floors. The space where plaintiff was injured was on the 16th floor in an area used by plaintiff’s employer for work related to the renovation of Cayre’s space. Plaintiff’s thumb was injured when he was using an unguarded saw on the 16th floor. The court noted that a lessee is deemed an owner within the meaning of Labor Law 241 (6):

We find that there are disputed issues of fact concerning whether the 16th floor space qualifies as a construction area. … . …”[G]enerally, the scope of a work site must be reviewed as a flexible concept, defined not only by the place but by the circumstances of the work to be done. Thus, Labor Law § 241(6) extends to areas where materials or equipment are being readied for use, as opposed to areas where they are merely stored for future use” … . Here, although defendants contend that the 16th floor space is [plaintiff’s employer’s] permanent workshop, in fact, the 16th floor work space where the accident occurred belonged to 1407 Broadway [the net operating lessee], and the 41st floor location of the executive bathroom being renovated was owned by 1407 Broadway, and leased to Cayre. * * *

We … reject Cayre’s argument that … plaintiff’s accident does not come within the ambit of Labor Law § 241(6) because he was engaged in the fabrication and transportation of materials to be used in connection with construction. As stated by the Court of Appeals, Labor Law § 241(6) covers industrial accidents that occur in the context of construction (Nagel v D & R Realty Corp., 99 NY2d 98). Indeed, Shields v General Elec. Co. (3 AD3d 715 [3d Dept 2004]) is instructive. There, the Court noted that “work that is an integral part of the construction contract’ and is necessitated by and incidental to the construction . . . and involve[s] materials being readied for use in connection therewith’ is construction work” … . Karwowski v 1407 Broadway Real Estate, LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 01422, First Dept 3-2-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED IN A WORK AREA ON THE 16TH FLOOR USED FOR RENOVATION WORK ON THE 41ST FLOOR, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE 16TH FLOOR WAS A CONSTRUCTION AREA WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 241 (6), THE COURT NOTED A LESSEE IS AN OWNER WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 241 (6) (FIRST DEPT))/LANDLORD-TENANT (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED IN A WORK AREA ON THE 16TH FLOOR USED FOR RENOVATION WORK ON THE 41ST FLOOR, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE 16TH FLOOR WAS A CONSTRUCTION AREA WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 241 (6), THE COURT NOTED A LESSEE IS AN OWNER WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 241 (6) (FIRST DEPT))/CONSTRUCTION AREA (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED IN A WORK AREA ON THE 16TH FLOOR USED FOR RENOVATION WORK ON THE 41ST FLOOR, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE 16TH FLOOR WAS A CONSTRUCTION AREA WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 241 (6), THE COURT NOTED A LESSEE IS AN OWNER WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 241 (6) (FIRST DEPT))

PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ALTERING OR ERECTING A STRUCTURE WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240 (1), DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT EXERCISE SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER THE METHOD OR MANNER OF PLAINTIFF’S WORK, PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined plaintiff was not engaged in an activity protected by Labor Law 240 (1) when he was injured and the defendant owner of the property did not supervise or control the manner of plaintiff’s work, requiring dismissal of the Labor Law 200 cause of action as well. The plaintiff worked for a car crushing busing and was standing on a crushed car on a trailer when he was knocked into the air by a piece of heavy equipment:

… [E]ven if we were to agree with plaintiff that the open trailer was a structure as that term is used in Labor Law § 240 (1), the record provides us with no basis to conclude that the activity in which plaintiff was engaged was a protected activity or, as relevant here, that plaintiff was altering or erecting a structure. …

“When an alleged defect or dangerous condition arises from [a] contractor’s methods and the owner exercises no supervisory control over the operation, no liability attaches to the owner under the common law or under Labor Law § 200” … . Lopez v 6071 Enters., LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 01372, Third Dept 3-1-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ALTERING OR ERECTING A STRUCTURE WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240 (1), DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT EXERCISE SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER THE METHOD OR MANNER OF PLAINTIFF’S WORK, PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT))/ALTERING OR ERECTING A STRUCTURE (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ALTERING OR ERECTING A STRUCTURE WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240 (1), DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT EXERCISE SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER THE METHOD OR MANNER OF PLAINTIFF’S WORK, PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT))

,

PROPERTY OWNER LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S FALL FROM A LADDER (UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1)) WHILE WORKING FOR A TENANT, EVEN IF THE OWNER WAS NOT AWARE THE TENANT HIRED THE PLAINTIFF, WHERE ONLY HEARSAY EVIDENCE IS OFFERED IN OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT, A QUESTION OF FACT IS NOT RAISED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) claim based upon a fall from a ladder. The court noted that the property owner was liable even if the property owner was unaware the plaintiff had been hired by a tenant (here a deli, also a defendant). The deli owner had provided the A-frame ladder which moved side to side and fell to the ground. The court noted that the defendant owner’s opposition papers were entirely hearsay, which cannot defeat summary judgment:

Plaintiff’s fall from an unsecured ladder establishes a violation of the statute …  for which defendant property owner is liable, even if the tenant contracted for the work without the owner’s knowledge … . Plaintiff sufficiently identified the location of the deli at his deposition, and also stated that the deli owner offered him money to paint the sign.

In opposition, defendant failed to raise an issue of fact sufficient to defeat summary judgment. The statements of the owner of the deli and the deli worker were unsworn and inadmissible as hearsay. It should be noted that in the over 2 ½ years since the statements were taken, defendant never attempted to obtain affidavits from these witnesses or attempted to depose them, proffering their statements only after plaintiff had moved for summary judgment. Indeed, in its responses to discovery requests, defendant affirmatively represented that it was “not presently in possession of any statements from witnesses to the accident.”

While hearsay statements may be offered in opposition to a motion for summary judgment, hearsay statements cannot defeat summary judgment “where it is the only evidence upon which the opposition to summary judgment is predicated” … . Gonzalez v 1225 Ogden Deli Grocery Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 01280, First Dept 2-27-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PROPERTY OWNER LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S FALL FROM A LADDER UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) WHILE WORKING FOR A TENANT, EVEN IF THE OWNER WAS NOT AWARE THE TENANT HIRED THE PLAINTIFF, WHERE ONLY HEARSAY EVIDENCE IS OFFERED IN OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT, A QUESTION OF FACT IS NOT RAISED (FIRST DEPT))/EVIDENCE (SUMMARY JUDGMENT, HEARSAY, PROPERTY OWNER LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S FALL FROM A LADDER UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) WHILE WORKING FOR A TENANT, EVEN IF THE OWNER WAS NOT AWARE THE TENANT HIRED THE PLAINTIFF, WHERE ONLY HEARSAY EVIDENCE IS OFFERED IN OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT, A QUESTION OF FACT IS NOT RAISED (FIRST DEPT))/HEARSAY (SUMMARY JUDGMENT, PROPERTY OWNER LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S FALL FROM A LADDER UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) WHILE WORKING FOR A TENANT, EVEN IF THE OWNER WAS NOT AWARE THE TENANT HIRED THE PLAINTIFF, WHERE ONLY HEARSAY EVIDENCE IS OFFERED IN OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT, A QUESTION OF FACT IS NOT RAISED (FIRST DEPT))/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (HEARSAY, PROPERTY OWNER LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S FALL FROM A LADDER UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) WHILE WORKING FOR A TENANT, EVEN IF THE OWNER WAS NOT AWARE THE TENANT HIRED THE PLAINTIFF, WHERE ONLY HEARSAY EVIDENCE IS OFFERED IN OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT, A QUESTION OF FACT IS NOT RAISED (FIRST DEPT))

LADDER MOVED FOR NO APPARENT REASON, PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined plaintiff’s summary judgment motion on his Labor Law 240 (1) action was properly granted. Plaintiff alleged the ladder he was standing on suddenly moved:

Plaintiff established his entitlement to partial summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240(1) claim through his testimony that he was caused to fall to the ground when the unsecured ladder on which he was standing suddenly shifted and kicked out from underneath him … .

Defendants’ opposition failed to raise a triable issue of fact. None of coworkers who provided affidavits actually witnessed plaintiff fall from the ladder, and they did not contradict his testimony that the ladder suddenly moved. Although defendants also submitted an unsworn accident report containing a statement from a coworker that plaintiff lost his balance and fell, this did not contradict plaintiff’s consistent testimony that he fell because the ladder suddenly moved… .. Furthermore, defendants’ reliance on O’Brien v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J. (29 NY3d 27 [2017]) is misplaced because that case, which found an issue of fact about whether a slippery exterior staircase provided adequate protection to the plaintiff, left intact the presumption that Labor Law § 240(1) is violated where, as here, a ladder collapses or malfunctions for no apparent reason … . Rom v Eurostruct, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 01262, First Dept 2-22-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (LADDER MOVED FOR NO APPARENT REASON, PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION (FIRST DEPT))/LADDERS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, LADDER MOVED FOR NO APPARENT REASON, PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION (FIRST DEPT))

UNSECURED, DAMAGED LADDER WOBBLED AND PLAINTIFF FELL, PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action was properly granted. Plaintiff testified the ladder he was using was unsecured and damaged. The ladder wobbled causing plaintiff to fall

[Defendant’s] submission of an ambiguous affidavit from plaintiff’s supervisor was insufficient to rebut plaintiff’s prima facie showing. Notably, the supervisor did not address the fact that he was at the scene of the accident shortly after plaintiff fell, and provided only vague references to other available ladders, without addressing plaintiff’s testimony that other workers were using those ladders  … . Furthermore, [defendant’s] argument that questions of fact exist as to whether plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his accident is unavailing given that [defendant] failed to make a showing that adequate safety devices were provided to plaintiff … . Pena v Jane H. Goldman Residuary Trust No. 1, 2018 NY Slip Op 01255, First Dept 2-22-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (UNSECURED, DAMAGED LADDER WOBBLED AND PLAINTIFF FELL, PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/LADDERS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, UNSECURED, DAMAGED LADDER WOBBLED AND PLAINTIFF FELL, PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))

8 TO 12 INCH HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL NOT ACTIONABLE, LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action should have been dismissed. Plaintiff was injured when a cart he was moving slipped off a makeshift ramp. The height differential was 8 to 12 inches, which did not present an actionable elevation-related risk:

Plaintiff was allegedly injured in the course of rolling a four-wheeled cart filled with about 100 to 200 pounds of materials over an unsecured, makeshift plywood ramp which bridged an approximately five- or six-inch gap between a truck bed to a loading dock, when the ramp slipped out of place and landed on the truck bed, and the cart descended, pulling on plaintiff’s arms and causing injuries. Plaintiff admitted that the vertical distance from the surface of the truck bed to the surface of the dock was about 8 to 12 inches, which under the circumstances, does not constitute a physically significant elevation differential covered by Labor Law § 240(1) … . Plaintiff’s injury was not proximately caused by a failure to protect him from any elevation-related risks posed by the distance of almost four feet from the floor to the surface of the dock, since plaintiff remained on the dock while the cart became wedged in the gap between the truck bed and the dock, and there is no evidence that the gap was large enough to pose a significant risk of any hazardous descent to the floor. Sawczyszyn v New York Univ., 2018 NY Slip Op 01120, First Dept 2-15-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (8 TO 12 INCH HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL NOT ACTIONABLE, LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))/ELEVATION-RELATED RISK (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, 8 TO 12 INCH HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL NOT ACTIONABLE, LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (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