BEGNOJA v. HUDSON RIVER PARK TRUST (2025)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (David B. Cohen, J.), entered on or about April 12, 2024, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted the motion of plaintiff for summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action as against defendants Super P57 LLC, RXR Pier 57 MT LLC, RXR Realty LLC, RXR Construction Services LLC, City Winery, LLC, and City Winery NY–Pier 57, LLC, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff, who fell from a ladder while insulating ductwork in a ceiling, established prima facie entitlement to summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action by demonstrating that “adequate safety devices to prevent [his] ladder from slipping or to protect [him] from falling were absent” (Rivera v. 712 Fifth Ave. Owner LP, 229 A.D.3d 401, 402, 213 N.Y.S.3d 56 [1st Dept. 2024] [internal quotation marks omitted]).  Testimony by plaintiff and a coworker eyewitness established that plaintiff was not provided with any other safety protection except the ladder, which fell along with plaintiff (see id.).  Thus, “the absence of protective devices proximately caused his injuries” (Augustyn v. City of New York, 95 A.D.3d 683, 684, 944 N.Y.S.2d 146 [1st Dept. 2012]).  Nor was plaintiff required to demonstrate that the ladder was defective to establish prima facie entitlement to summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action (see Rodas–Garcia v. NYC United LLC, 225 A.D.3d 556, 556, 207 N.Y.S.3d 473 [1st Dept. 2024]).

In opposition, defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact.  Given that plaintiff was not provided with adequate safety devices, “the statute was violated under any version of the accident” (Sanchez v. 1 Burgess Rd., LLC, 195 A.D.3d 531, 531, 145 N.Y.S.3d 798 [1st Dept. 2021]).  “Nor does a lack of certainty as to exactly what preceded plaintiff's fall raise issues of fact” (id. [internal quotation marks and brackets omitted]).  Additionally, whether plaintiff had to lean while he was standing on the ladder is immaterial because, given the lack of safeguards, “any alleged misuse by him constitutes at most comparative negligence” (Hoxhaj v. West 30th HL, LLC, 195 A.D.3d 503, 504, 145 N.Y.S.3d 351 [1st Dept. 2021]).  Furthermore, plaintiff's testimony was largely corroborated by two eyewitnesses and was not incredible as a matter of law (see Venezia v. LTS 711 11th Ave., 201 A.D.3d 493, 496, 159 N.Y.S.3d 430 [1st Dept. 2022]).