Plaintiff’s Credibility Issues Add Up To Denial of Summary Judgment Motion
In a recent decision, the Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed a Supreme Court, Queens County decision that denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability as to his Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action.
In Inaji v. Circle F 2243 Jackson (DE), LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 04380, plaintiff alleges he was injured when he fell from a ladder while performing work at a construction site. Plaintiff, a carpenter at the time of the subject incident, was moving forms for pouring concrete from one floor to another, by carrying them up a wooden ladder that had been built at the construction site and passing the forms to a worker above. According to plaintiff, the accident occurred when he was ascending the ladder with a form, and the ladder wobbled or moved, causing him to lose his balance and fall to the ground below.
In support of his motion, plaintiff submitted a transcript of his own deposition testimony, which established that he was working on an unsecured ladder that moved for no apparent reason, causing him to fall. However, the Second Department, noting long-standing precedent, affirmed the lower Court’s decision:
“[w]here a plaintiff is the sole witness to the accident and his or her credibility has been placed in issue, the granting of summary judgment on the issue of liability in favor of the plaintiff on a Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action is inappropriate.” Alvarez v. 2455 8 Ave, LLC, 202 A.D.3d at 725; Woszczyna v. BJW Assoc., 31 A.D.3d 745, 755).
Specifically, the Second Department noted that plaintiff’s evidentiary submissions in support of his motion, as well as evidence submitted in opposition to the motion, raised triable issues of fact regarding (1) how the incident occurred, (2) whether the accident could have occurred in the manner the plaintiff described, and (3) whether the ladder was secured.
The Second Department affirmed then affirmed the lower Court’s decision.
We checked the tape on this one.
In support of their motion, the defendant’s focused on conflicting descriptions of the subject incident, specifically the inconsistent narratives of the incident offered by plaintiff during his deposition, as well as plaintiff’s recollection of the occurrence in his medical records shortly after the subject incident. Further, defendants offered evidence from an expert engineer that indicated the ladder in question was properly constructed and secured, and “could not possibly have caused the plaintiff to fall.”
You’ll recall our formula for a successful summary judgment motion on a Labor Law § 240(1) claim:
It is indeed rare that there is such overwhelming evidence available in order to dispute plaintiff’s claim on so many different fronts, including how the accident occurred, if it occurred at all, and whether the plaintiff was actually injured as a result of the accident, all of which defendants properly focused on in their opposition.
The Injai 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.
