Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Ignacio LLACH, Plaintiff–respondent, v. L.I.C.C. REALTY CO., Defendant–appellant.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (James d'Auguste, J.), entered on or about March 15, 2024, which denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as to liability on his Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant defendant's motion to the extent of dismissing all causes of action except the Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff alleges that he was injured while performing construction work at a building owned by defendant. According to plaintiff, he was using a three-foot A-frame ladder to install a damper into a ceiling hole when the ladder shifted, causing him to fall. Notably, the parties do not dispute that this ladder was inappropriate and less stable for plaintiff to use in performing the damper installation project due to the height differential between the ladder and ceilings of the medication rooms.
Plaintiff established his entitlement to partial summary judgment, as the record presents no issues of fact as to whether his own conduct was the sole proximate cause of his accident. Plaintiff testified that his supervisor had instructed him to quickly complete this project because of a looming building inspection. Against this imposed deadline, plaintiff looked in various places for a ladder more suitable for his task, but could not find a taller ladder that was typically stored in the workshop of the building. Because the taller ladder was not readily available, plaintiff was constrained to use the shorter one, and his use of same “cannot be said to be the sole proximate cause of his injuries ․” (see Pacheco v. Halsted Communications, Ltd., 144 A.D.3d 768, 769, 40 N.Y.S.3d 568 [2d Dept. 2016]).
Plaintiff's causes of action other than the Labor Law § 240(1) claim are dismissed as abandoned. Plaintiff acknowledges that he did not oppose dismissal of those other causes of action, and he addresses only Labor Law § 240(1) on appeal (see e.g. Linares v. Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co., 225 A.D.3d 520, 521, 207 N.Y.S.3d 78 [1st Dept. 2024]).
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: 3107
Decided: November 26, 2024
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)