Conflicting Narratives of Accident Don’t Matter for Labor Law § 240(1)
In a recent decision, the Supreme Court, New York County granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, inter alia, as to his Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action.
In Veliu v. Verizon N.Y. Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 31221(U), plaintiff alleges that he was working as a pitman in a trench that was approximately three feet below street level to monitor a backhoe’s mechanical bucket while it was digging in the trench. As the bucket was hoisting and lifting the curb about six to eight feet above the ground, an unsecured heavy section of the curb, weighing approximately 150 pounds, rolled off of the bucket, landed in the trench, and injured plaintiff. Plaintiff brought suit, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1) and 241(6), along with violations of common-law negligence. After discovery, plaintiff moved for summary judgment as to his Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) causes of action.
In support of his motion, plaintiff submitted his deposition testimony attesting that while in the trench, the large piece of the curb that was being hoisted was unsecured. In opposition, defendant submitted an affidavit of a witness to the subject incident, who attested that the subject curb slid into the trench where plaintiff was standing and at no point did the backhoe bucket hoist any unsecured piece of concrete into the air.
The Supreme Court, New York County granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as to Labor Law § 240(1). In its decision, it held that although there are two conflicting versions of how the accident occurred, under either version, “safety devices were either absent or inadequate to protect the plaintiff.” The conflict did not create a material question of fact, warranting a finding of summary judgment in favor of plaintiff.
Defendants have to be careful with proposing an alternative narrative of events. Just because there is a question as to how the accident happened, does not mean that there is necessarily a question of fact. If there is a violation of § 240(1) in both narratives, plaintiff wins.
The Veliu 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.