First Department Modifies Lower Court Decision Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to Labor Law § 240(1).
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) and 241(6) claims.
In Guzman-Saquisili, 2024 NY Slip Op 05420, plaintiff was a carpenter employed by third-party defendant at the time of the subject incident. According to plaintiff, his accident occurred when he was retrieving wooden planks for his coworker to install on the floor of the subject location. To retrieve the wooden planks, he was required to traverse an uncovered beam pocket measuring three feet wide and three feet deep. Plaintiff’s accident occurred when he tripped over metal debris on the floor and fell into the beam pocket. Plaintiff was wearing a harness with a fall prevention line, but there was no place for him to tie off.
The First Department disagreed with the lower Court in that the defendants, the owner and lessee of the subject property, failed to establish that plaintiff’s summary judgment motion was premature, as they failed to show that they needed proof that was within the exclusive knowledge of plaintiff, that their claims in opposition are supported by something other than mere hope or conjecture, and that they attempted to discover facts at variance with plaintiff’s proof. Plaintiff had already been deposed on three separate dates by the time he moved for summary judgment, and a co-worker, also employed by third-party defendant, was not in the exclusive control of plaintiff.
Further, plaintiff established his prima facie entitlement to summary judgment on liability as to Labor Law § 240(1) by showing that his accident arose from a gravity-related risk against which the defendant failed to adequately protect him.
The First Department also held that the notice to admit (the contentions of which were deemed admitted due to a lack of response by plaintiff) did not ultimately establish that photographs, which did not depict metal debris, fairly and accurately depicted the location on the date of the incident and at the time of the incident.
It appears that the underlying denial of plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as to Labor Law § 240(1) was based on an argument that the defendants were looking for additional information in discovery. The First Department lays out a three prong test for assessing the prematurity of moving for summary judgment, which the lower Court held defendants satisfied, but the First Department determined they did not.
The Guzman-Saquisili 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.