First Department Modifies Lower Court Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to Labor Law § 240(1).
In a recent decision, the Appellate Division, First Department reversed a Supreme Court, Bronx County decision that, inter alia, denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as to his Labor Law § 240(1) claim and denied both plaintiff and defendant’s motion for summary judgment as to Labor Law § 241(6), as predicated on 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(a)(1) (“overhead hazards”).
In Urquia v. Deegan 135 Realty LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 05080, plaintiff alleged that while he was stripping ceiling forms in the basement level of a construction site, and on an unsecured ladder, forms additional to the one he was removing fell from the ceiling, causing him to lose his balance on the ladder and tip into one of the nearby support columns. The lower Court noted that, according to plaintiff’s sword affidavit, he did not fall off the ladder, but the impact of the beams caused the ladder to tip, and he hit his back against one of the columns resulting in additional injury.
In its decision, the Supreme Court, Bronx County found there was a question of fact warranting denial of plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as to whether the beams that fell from the ceiling was a load that required securing for the purposes for the undertaking pursuant to Labor Law § 240(1). As to the Labor Law § 241(6) claim based on Industrial Code § 23-1.7(a)(1), the lower Court found that there were triable issues of fact as to whether plaintiff ‘s assigned work area was “normally exposed to falling materials or objects.”
The First Department disagreed with the lower Court, noting that plaintiff met his prima facie burden as to Labor Law § 240(1) by establishing that he was injured when he was hit by 20-to-30-pound small beams falling from the ceiling, causing him to lose his balance while standing on an unsecured ladder. As to the Labor Law § 241(6) claim as predicated on § 23-1.7(a)(1), the Appellate Division found that plaintiff’s reliance on that particular industrial code section was misplaced, as the type of overhead protection contemplated under that industrial code would interfere with plaintiff’s ability to perform the form stripping form work at the subject location.
Once again plaintiff established his entitlement to summary judgment as a matter of law by showing that he was caused to lose balance while on an unsecured ladder when beams fell from the ceiling. It’s academic, but the § 241(6) decision is not one that we see usually, where the protections contemplated under the statute will prohibit plaintiff from performing the work.
The Urquia 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.
