Supreme Court, Kings County Denies Plaintiff’s Summary Judgment Motion Where Ladder Didn’t Cause the Accident Bringing Hope to Labor Law Defendants
In a recent decision, the Supreme Court, Kings County denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as to his Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action. In Anderson v. City of New York, 2024 NY Slip Op 33596(U), plaintiff alleges that he was injured while working on a ladder installing insulation on an HVAC pipe when the pipe exploded, striking him and propelling him backwards. While propelled backwards, he grabbed the ladder he was standing on but was unable to prevent his fall. The ladder he was on shook, but did not fall.
After discovery, plaintiff moved for summary judgment, arguing he is entitled to summary judgment because he was not provided any means to secure the ladder and was not provided with alternative safety devices, such as an anchor point to tie off a body harness or a scaffold with railings. Defendants argue that plaintiff’s injury was not gravity related, nor caused by a violation of § 240(1) or any defect in the ladder.
In its decision, the Court focused on this passage from plaintiff’s deposition testimony:
It then held that this testimony demonstrated there were questions of fact as to whether plaintiff’s injuries were caused by being knocked off the ladder by the exploding pipe or by the failure of the ladder to be secured, as well as whether he should have been provided with an alternative safety device. The Court cited to the Court of Appeals decision Cutaia v. Board of Managers, 38 N.Y.3d 1037, 169 N.Y.S.3d 902 (2022) in which the Court reversed summary judgment as to plaintiff’s § 240(1) where the worker fell off a ladder after receiving an electrical shock, holding that there were questions of fact whether the ladder’s purported inadequacy or the absence of additional safety devices was a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s accident.
As of the date of this writing, the parties time to appeal this decision has not yet expired.
Interesting decision here from the Supreme Court, Kings County. If it looks like it wasn’t the failure to provide the ladder or the failure of the ladder itself did not cause the injury, you may have a question of fact with Labor Law § 240(1).
The Anderson 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.
