Alternative Narratives Take Plaintiff’s Claim out of Labor Law Protections
Procedural History & Facts:
In a recent decision, the Supreme Court, Kings County denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action due to a question of fact as to whether there was a violation of the statute.
In Molina v. Venchi 2, LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 33556(U), plaintiff alleged that he sustained personal injuries from a work accident on a construction site when the “scaffold upon which he was working collapsed causing him to fall from a height and sustain injuries.” According to plaintiff’s summary judgment submissions, he was using a cordless impact drill to screw metal studs to a track while standing atop a Baker scaffold.
In opposition, the defendant submitted evidence that plaintiff gave a “markedly” different accident account to his treating medical personnel then that asserted, and, if credited by a jury, would result in a determination that there was no Labor Law § 240(1) violation. In support of their opposition, the defendant submitted medical records indicating plaintiff gave an account that he tripped on an obstacle and sustained a laceration by a metal object. The defendant also submitted testimony from its employee, who indicated that the Baker scaffold plaintiff was working on was intact and had not collapsed.
Defendant also submitted an affidavit from a former employee indicating that plaintiff fell off a ladder that he placed on top of the Baker’s scaffold, even though his co-employees told him not to do so. In its decision, the Court denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, indicating an issue of fact existed as to how the subject incident occurred, given the conflicting narratives of the subject incident.
The parties’ time to appeal has not yet expired.
Commentary:
We have here a Supreme Court, Kings County decision that holds that sufficient inconsistencies exist to establish a question of fact warranting denial of plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. It would appear in order to be “sufficient” to warrant denial of a plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as to Labor Law § 240(1), at least one of the conflicting narratives would have to establish there was no violation of the statute.
The Molina 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.
