Due to the nature of the Labor Law in New York, specifically section 240(1), notoriously known as \u201cThe Scaffold Law\u201d, summary judgment motions resulting in a question of fact are a rare and mysterious jewel in a sea of jurisprudence finding in favor of plaintiffs.\u00a0<\/p>\n
However, in a recent decision, Anderson v. Toll House, LLC<\/em>, 2023 NY Slip OP 34186(U) (Sup. Ct. Kings Cty. 2023), the Supreme Court, Kings County found a question of fact as to whether the weight of sheetrock panels would generate sufficient force to be a gravity-related danger, and therefore qualifying for the extraordinary protections of Labor Law \u00a7 240(1).\u00a0<\/p>\n Plaintiff alleges he was injured while delivering sheetrock to a construction site when a temporary floor collapsed causing sheetrock, approximately ten sheets of 12 feet by 4 feet weighing 45 pounds each, to fall on top of him.\u00a0 The sheetrock was loaded on, but not secured to, an A-frame dolly.\u00a0<\/p>\n It is worth noting that the plaintiff was employed with an employment agency and had been hired by the entity delivering the sheetrock as a temporary laborer to deliver construction materials.\u00a0<\/p>\n In its decision, the Court held, inter alia<\/em>:<\/p>\n The Court then turned to the defendants\u2019 main argument pertaining to \u00a7 240(1), that sheetrock falling off a dolly on the same level as plaintiff is not an elevation-related risk contemplated by the statute.\u00a0 In its decision regarding plaintiff\u2019s Labor Law \u00a7 240(1) claim, the Supreme Court, Kings County held that there are relevant questions of fact as to whether the weight of the sheetrock panels together with the height from which they fell would generate sufficient force to be a gravity related danger and whether the sheetrock panels should have been secured to the A-frame dolly. Marrero v. 2075 Holding Co. LLC<\/em>, 106 A.D.3d 408 (1st<\/sup> Dep\u2019t 2013) and McCallister v. 200 Park LP<\/em>, 92 A.D.3d 927 (2d Dep\u2019t 2012).\u00a0<\/p>\n Notably, the Marrero <\/em>and McCallister<\/em> cases focused on whether elevation differentials are considered di minimis<\/em> when the weight of the object being hoisted or to be secured can generate an extreme amount of force even though it only traveled a short distance.\u00a0<\/p>\n The Supreme Court, Kings County decision in Anderson v. Toll House<\/em> has been appealed by defendants.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n