SAULA v. [And a Third-Party Action] (2025)

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lucindo Suarez, J.), entered November 29, 2023, which granted plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) claims, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff established prima facie entitlement to partial summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240(1) claim based on the uncontested testimony that he slipped on the top, first rung of a wet ladder while descending, and that defendants did not require him to use fall protection gear when using the ladder (see generally Cahill v. Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth., 4 N.Y.3d 35, 39, 790 N.Y.S.2d 74, 823 N.E.2d 439 [2004]).  The evidence further established that the wet ladder, the only means of access between the first and second floors, lacked slip protection and a tie-off point, in violation of Labor Law § 240(1) (see Lindsay v. CG Maiden Member, LLC, 213 A.D.3d 604, 605, 184 N.Y.S.3d 45 [1st Dept. 2023];  Milligan v. Tutor Perini Corp., 191 A.D.3d 437, 437–438, 137 N.Y.S.3d 702 [1st Dept. 2021]).  In opposition, defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

Inasmuch as plaintiff established that his injury was causally related to a violation of Labor Law § 240(1), the court also properly dismissed defendants’ affirmative defense asserting that plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his accident.  “[I]f a statutory violation [of § 240(1)] is a proximate cause of an injury, the plaintiff cannot be solely to blame for it” (Blake v. Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of N.Y. City, 1 N.Y.3d 280, 290, 771 N.Y.S.2d 484, 803 N.E.2d 757 [2003]).

Because the court properly granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240(1) claim, defendants’ arguments regarding plaintiff's Labor Law § 241(6) claim are academic (see Asian v. Flintlock Constr. Servs., LLC, 225 A.D.3d 462, 463, 207 N.Y.S.3d 67 [1st Dept. 2024]).