DANIELLO v. MAGEN COMPANY INC (2025)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lyle E. Frank, J.), entered July 16, 2024, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's Labor Law § 240(1) claim, and denied plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on the same claim, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, defendants’ motion denied, and plaintiff's motion granted.

Plaintiff established prima facie entitlement to summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240(1) claim through his deposition testimony which showed that the A-frame ladder he was using to perform overhead ceiling-wiring work proved inadequate as a safety device (see Ping Lin v. 100 Wall St. Prop. L.L.C., 193 A.D.3d 650, 651, 148 N.Y.S.3d 71 [1st Dept. 2021]).  Furthermore, we have repeatedly held that “ ‘[i]t is irrelevant that plaintiff inspected the ladder and found it to be in good order before using it, as [a] plaintiff is not required to demonstrate that the ladder was defective in order to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240(1) claim’ ” (Rodas–Garcia v. NYC United LLC, 225 A.D.3d 556, 556, 207 N.Y.S.3d 473 [1st Dept. 2024], quoting Pinzon v. Royal Charter Props., Inc., 211 A.D.3d 442, 443, 179 N.Y.S.3d 218 [1st Dept. 2022]).  Plaintiff testified that he was using both hands to perform the overhead ceiling work, when he was suddenly “jolted” by an unexpected drop of a ceiling tile that he was handling, resulting in a “wiggle” in the ladder, which preceded his loss of balance and eventual fall, as there was nothing available for plaintiff to grab onto to brace himself against a fall.

Defendants fail to raise an issue of fact.  Contrary to their contention, plaintiff's fall from the ladder was “directly related to the work that he was performing, as opposed to his own misstep” or an unexplained loss of balance (Ping Lin, 193 A.D.3d at 652, 148 N.Y.S.3d 71).  To the extent defendants argue that the ladder did not fall until plaintiff first lost his balance, such argument does not, based on the facts here, show that the ladder was an adequate safety device for plaintiff's task (see id. at 653, 148 N.Y.S.3d 71 [It is “no moment whether the ladder shook prior to plaintiff's fall, or as defendants maintain, after plaintiff lost his balance and grabbed the top of it to steady himself.  In either event, the ladder was an inadequate safety device”]).

Based on the foregoing, plaintiff is entitled to partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim.