If you were wondering \u201cWhat if plaintiff completely disregards the warning labels on a ladder?\u00a0 Does he still have a Labor Law \u00a7 240(1) claim if he then falls off of it?\u201d — it\u2019s your lucky day.\u00a0<\/p>\n
In a recent decision, the Appellate Division, First Department unanimously affirmed a lower Court decision that granted plaintiff\u2019s motion for partial summary judgment as to liability on his Labor Law \u00a7 240(1) claim.\u00a0<\/p>\n
In Nunez v. SY Prospect LLC<\/em>, 2024 NY Slip Op 01782 (1st<\/sup> Dep\u2019t 2024), plaintiff had been hired to work on a ladder to caulk and paint a stairwell inside the defendant owner\u2019s building.\u00a0 Plaintiff alleged that the defendant owner failed to provide any safety devices or assistance to ensure the stability of the ladder plaintiff was using, which \u201cabruptly shook\u201d resulting in the subject incident.<\/p>\n The Supreme Court, Bronx County held that the defendant owner, in opposing plaintiff\u2019s motion, did not present any evidence that appropriate safety equipment was available to secure the ladder or prevent a fall, nor did they refute plaintiff\u2019s testimony that he was not provided with any safety devices.\u00a0 Defendant owner did proffer a \u201cconclusory affidavit\u201d from plaintiff\u2019s supervisor in which he stated, without elaboration, that he observed plaintiff ascend the wrong side of the subject ladder and told plaintiff to \u201cgo up the other side\u201d of the subject ladder.\u00a0<\/p>\n The First Department agreed with the lower Court, noting that the recalcitrant worker defense relied on by the defendant owner was inapplicable in view of the undisputed fact that no adequate safety devices were provided.\u00a0<\/p>\n Notably, the First Department noted that alleged discrepancies in plaintiff\u2019s testimony were insufficient to create an issue of fact where it is undisputed that plaintiff lost his balance and fell from an unsecured ladder.\u00a0 The First Department\u2019s decision does not outline the specifics of the discrepancies, or directly dictate the level such discrepancies need rise to in order to be sufficient to create an issue of fact.\u00a0 Instead, the First Department cited to Orellano v. 29 East 37th<\/sup> Street Realty Corp.<\/em>, 292 A.D.2d 289, 740 N.Y.S.2d 16 (1st<\/sup> Dep\u2019t 2002), which held that so long as there is no dispute that plaintiff\u2019s injuries were caused by his fall, discrepancies as to how or why the plaintiff fell off the ladder are irrelevant.\u00a0<\/p>\n The Nunez<\/em> decision can be found here.<\/a><\/p>\n