First Department Engages in Abstractionism to Find Question of Fact in Sculptor § 240(1) Case
In a recent decision, the Appellate Division, First Department unanimously reversed a Supreme Court, New York County decision that dismissed plaintiff’s Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action due to a question of fact as to the mechanism of the subject incident.
In Rivera v. 95th and Third LLC et al., 2024 NY Slip Op 03018, plaintiff alleged that he was injured while he was assisting with the erection of a large stone sculpture on the terrace of a building. During the work, several of the stones, which weighed approximately 3,500 pounds each, had to be removed and replaced. As a hoist exerted pressure on a stone, the stone broke, swung to the side, and pinned plaintiff’s hand against a wall.
Upon review, the First Department unanimously held that the lower Court should have denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment to dismiss plaintiff’s Labor Law § 240(1) claim. According to the First Department, the record that was before the lower Court failed to demonstrate whether the subject stone merely moved laterally, or in a pendulum-like fashion.
If the stone moved in a pendulum-like fashion, the First Department reasoned, such movement would implicate the force of gravity. As such, the record raised a “permissible inference” that the provided safety devices “proved inadequate to shield that injured worker from harm directly flowing from the application of the force of gravity.”
Because the question of whether the stone moved laterally or in a pendulum-like fashion was unresolved by the record, a question of fact existed, warranting denial of defendants’ motion for summary judgment. We note, that the lower Court’s decision on defendants’ motion notes that “. . . the stone abruptly broke loose, moved toward the wall, and trapped plaintiff’s hand. . .”.
The Rivera decision can be found here.
For additional information, contact Philip D. Priore, Esq. and/or Michael J. Shields, Esq.
This article was prepared by McCormick & Priore, P.C. to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is in no way intended to provide legal advice or to create an attorney-client relationship. All Rights Reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of McCormick & Priore, P.C.
