Pulley System Collapses, Hoisting Plaintiff to Summary Judgment
Sometimes it’s the safety device itself that workers need protection from.
In a recent decision, the Appellate Division, First Department modified a Supreme Court, Bronx County decision that granted plaintiff’s partial motion for summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action and dismissed plaintiff’s Labor Law § 241(6) cause of action, as predicated on a violation of Industrial Code § 23-6.2.
In Sarante v. Courtlandt Development, LLC, et al., 2025 NY Slip Op 03149, plaintiff alleged that he was injured while hoisting a heavy steel beam from the basement of a construction project to the first floor using a chain block pulley system that was owned by his employer. According to plaintiff’s testimony, while using the pulley system to hoist an I-beam, the beam made contact with three other beams, and the pulley hoist system’s metal base detached suddenly while making a “pop sound.” The poles, which were part of the hoist system detached, injuring plaintiff. After discovery, plaintiff moved for summary judgment as to his Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action. The third-party defendant/second third-party plaintiff moved to dismiss the § 241(6) cause of action as predicated on a violation of Industrial Code § 23-6.2 (“Material Hoisting”).
In decision, the Supreme Court, Bronx County granted plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment as to his Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action, and the Appellate Division, First Department agreed due to the fact that the chain block pulley system was a safety device that failed to protect plaintiff from the hazard of a falling object, in this case the poles of the device itself. The First Department noted that the testimony provided in opposition regarding plaintiff’s “excessive hoisting” was not the sole proximate cause of the subject incident because he took direction during the hoisting process from his employer. Any fault on the part of the plaintiff in disregarding his employer’s direction would amount to contributory negligence, which is not a defense to liability under Labor Law § 240(1).
As to plaintiff’s § 241(6) cause of action (predicated on Industrial Code § 23-6.2) the record is rather anticlimactic, indicating that plaintiff would no longer be pursuing the § 241(6) cause of action (likely due to the probable outcome on the § 240(1) decision) and it was then dismissed by the First Department.
In any event, what we have here is a classic failing object case, constituting a gravity-related risk that caused injury to the plaintiff. That’s going to get you summary judgment most of the time, with very few exceptions.
The Sarante 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.