If you haven\u2019t been versing yourself in the Labor Law in your spare time, it can seem simply like \u201cplaintiff always wins.\u201d\u00a0 Usually you\u2019d be right, and that sentiment is true in the case discussed below.\u00a0 However, this case stands out for two reasons: (1) it gives us a review of what specifically plaintiff\u2019s burden is when making a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment in a Labor Law \u00a7 240(1) (\u201cThe Scaffold Law\u201d) cause of action; and it provides (2) a review of the needle-threading that the \u201closs of balance\u201d defense needs to navigate to successfully raise a question of fact and defeat a plaintiff\u2019s summary judgment motion on a \u00a7 240(1) claim.\u00a0<\/p>\n
In Rodas-Garcia v. NYC United, LLC<\/em>, 2024 NY Slip Op 01687 (1st<\/sup> Dep\u2019t 2024), plaintiff alleged that he fell from an unsecured 12-foot A-frame ladder that suddenly moved as he was reaching overhead to apply plaster to a ceiling.\u00a0 At the conclusion of discovery, the parties moved for summary judgment on plaintiff\u2019s Labor Law \u00a7 240(1) claim.\u00a0 The Supreme Court, New York County granted plaintiff\u2019s motion and denied defendant\u2019s motion.\u00a0 The First Department unanimously upheld the lower Court\u2019s decision.\u00a0 The following is noteworthy for the purposes of the discussion below:<\/p>\n Addressing plaintiff\u2019s inspection of the ladder prior to use, the First Department cited long-standing precedent that to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment on a Labor Law \u00a7 240(1) claim, plaintiff is not required to demonstrate that the ladder was defective, and his inspection of the ladder prior to its use is irrelevant.\u00a0<\/p>\n In addressing defendant\u2019s evidence as to plaintiff\u2019s repositioning of the ladder, the First Department held that it was solely inadmissible hearsay, but stated if it were to be considered, at most, it established comparative negligence on the part of plaintiff, which is not a defense to a Labor Law \u00a7 240(1) claim.<\/p>\n Lastly, the First Department rejected the argument made by defendant that purported to establish that plaintiff lost his balance as opposed to falling from a ladder that suddenly moved.\u00a0 Procedurally, it declined to consider this argument, as the medical evidence was not included in the record and the issue that plaintiff lost his balance rather than fell from the ladder that suddenly moved was improperly raised for the first time on appeal.\u00a0<\/p>\n Despite the procedural rejection, the First Department indicated that if this argument were considered it would be substantively rejected, as the argument that plaintiff fell because he \u201clost his balance\u201d did not contradict plaintiff\u2019s consistent testimony that he \u201cfell because the ladder suddenly moved.\u201d\u00a0 The First Department then cited to Rom v. Eurostruct, Inc.<\/em>, 158 A.D.3d 570, 571 (1st<\/sup> Dep\u2019t 2018) which held that a plaintiff\u2019s testimony that he \u201clost his balance and fell because<\/em> the ladder moved\u201d (emphasis added) was not determined to be inconsistent for the purposes of Labor Law \u00a7 240(1) just because plaintiff \u201clost his balance.\u201d<\/p>\n In plain English, this means that the order of events matters.\u00a0 As we have reported before, if plaintiff simply \u201closes his balance\u201d and falls from a ladder, it may be sufficient to establish a question of fact and defeat a summary judgment motion by plaintiff involving a Labor Law \u00a7 240(1) claim.\u00a0 However, as the First Department holds here, if plaintiff testifies that he lost his balance and fell because the subject ladder suddenly moved, he has made a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment on his Labor Law \u00a7 240(1) claim.\u00a0 \u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n The Rodas-Garcia<\/em> case can be found here.<\/a><\/p>\n\n