First Department Court Cites to Second Department Precedent
In a recent decision, the Appellate Division, First Department modified a Supreme Court, New York County decision that denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as to his Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action.
In Meji v. 770 Broadway Owner, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 00401, plaintiff was employed as a driver and flagman at a construction site, and on the date of the subject incident, plaintiff and his co-workers were tasked with reinforcing an existing sidewalk shed/scaffold at the subject site. Plaintiff alleges that he was injured when a cross-brace that was to be installed on the shed fell from where it had been leaning against the shed, striking him on the head and shoulder.
The Supreme Court, New York County denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, holding that the scaffolding pipe was not “material being hoisted or a load that required securing” for the purposes of the undertaking, nor was it expected that the pipe required securing when it fell. The lower Court cited plaintiff’s own testimony that he “had never seen a pipe tied to a sidewalk bridge before its instillation” as proof of a lack of evidence that the pipe fell due to an inadequacy or absence of a safety device of the kind contemplated under the statute.
The Appellate Division, First Department disagreed. It cited to relatively recent precedent from the its prior decisions in Ruiz v. Phipps Houses, Douglas v. Tishman Constr. Corp., and Diaz v. HHC TS Reit LLC, holding that scaffold piping left unsecured is encompassed by Labor Law § 240(1). Notably, the Supreme Court, New York County had cited Second and Third Department precedent in its decision.
The lower Courts in New York routinely look outside their department for persuasive precedent when making decisions on various cases. It seems in this matter, the persuasive precedent led the Supreme Court, New York County to a decision that conflicts with First Department precedent on point, resulting in the overturning of the lower Court’s decision on the motion.
The Mejia 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.