On rare occasions involving the Labor Law, sometimes no one wins.\u00a0 In a recent decision, multiple questions of fact on both sides of the argument prohibited the parties from emerging victorious on summary judgment, sending the matter to the jury.\u00a0<\/p>\n
In Rodriguez v. Fawn E. Fourth St., LLC<\/em>, 2024 NY Slip Op 00690 (1st<\/sup> Dep\u2019t 2024), the First Department modified a decision from Supreme Court, New York County which granted defendant\u2019s motion for summary judgment, dismissing plaintiff\u2019s complaint; and denied plaintiff\u2019s motion for summary judgment as to his Labor Law \u00a7 240(1) claim.<\/p>\n Plaintiff alleges he sustained injuries when he and his co-workers were replacing a 6-foot tall, 30-inch diameter water heater, weighing approximately 700 pounds.\u00a0 Facts in the decision as to the mechanism of the subject accident are scarce, but defendant argued that the water heater\u2019s breakdown was routine maintenance, and not a \u201crepair\u201d within the meaning of Labor Law \u00a7 240(1).\u00a0 The First Department found this unavailing, as defendant only offered conclusory statements as to the cause of the water heater\u2019s breakdown and did not submit specific proof that the water heater\u2019s failure was due to normal wear and tear of particular parts, or of the system itself.\u00a0<\/p>\n Triable issues of fact also existed as to whether, in consideration of the weight of the water heater as it was strapped to a hand truck, such weight created a hazardous gravitational force that devices enumerated in Labor Law \u00a7 240(1) were meant to protect, prohibiting the granting of plaintiff\u2019s motion for summary judgment.\u00a0<\/p>\n As a result, the First Department modified the lower court\u2019s decision, denying defendant\u2019s motion for summary judgment and upholding the denial of plaintiff\u2019s motion for summary judgment.\u00a0<\/p>\n