First Department Affirms Inept Co-Worker Not Bar to Summary Judgment
Procedural History & Facts:
In a recent decision, the Appellate Division, First Department unanimously upheld the portions of a Supreme Court, Bronx County decision that granted Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as to his Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action.
In Sandoval v. 201 West 16 Owners Corp., 2024 NY Slip Op 04932, plaintiff alleged that while he was working at a construction site, he was using ropes with his co-worker to lift façade stones from the street to the sidewalk bridge on which he was standing when his co-worker released his grasp on one rope, causing plaintiff to come into contact with the plywood barrier on the sidewalk bridge.
At the conclusion of discovery, all parties moved for summary judgment, and the Supreme Court, Bronx County held that plaintiff established his prima facie entitlement to summary judgment because the ropes plaintiff was using with his co-worker “proved inadequate to prevent [a stone] from falling” and caused plaintiff’s injuries. Upon review, the First Department affirmed, and rejected the defendants’ argument that plaintiff’s motion should have been denied due to the fact that plaintiff’s co-worker’s negligence caused the subject incident, because “people are not safety devices within the meaning of the Labor Law.”
The First Department also rejected the defendants’ argument that plaintiff’s co-workers’ negligence was a superseding cause of the subject incident, and that Labor Law § 240(1) does not apply because plaintiff did not fall and was not struck by a falling object.
Commentary:
The effort by the defendants here to find an alternative explanation for the subject incident is admirable. However, the fact remains that the owner/general contractor is under a duty to provide adequate protections, here, ropes or supports that prevented the subject incident from occurring, and did not. The Court’s are going to call that a strike every time.
The Sandoval 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.
