PILAPANTA v. HUDSON 888 OWNER LLC (2025)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul A. Goetz, J.), entered on or about September 12, 2024, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240(1) claim, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted.

Plaintiff alleges that he was drilling metal framing material into the ceiling with both of his feet on the fourth step of an A-frame ladder, when he felt the ladder suddenly move and fall for an unknown reason, causing him to fall with it.  Defendants' superintendent testified that he was notified of the accident a few minutes after it occurred and that when he arrived at the scene, he found plaintiff lying on the floor and the ladder standing upright.

The court incorrectly found that plaintiff's testimony was insufficient to satisfy his initial burden, relying on a distinguishable case where “[n]o evidence was submitted that the ladder moved out of position, so as to indicate that it was inadequately secured” (Joseph v. 210 W. 18th, LLC, 189 A.D.3d 1384, 1385, 134 N.Y.S.3d 775 [2d Dept. 2020]).  Here, plaintiff testified that the ladder was locked and stable but suddenly moved for no apparent reason, causing him to fall off the ladder, which raised the presumption of a Labor Law § 240(1) violation (see Rom v. Eurostruct, Inc., 158 A.D.3d 570, 571, 71 N.Y.S.3d 57 [1st Dept. 2018];  see also 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];  Soriano v. St. Mary's Indian Orthodox Church of Rockland, Inc., 118 A.D.3d 524, 526, 988 N.Y.S.2d 58 [1st Dept. 2014]).

Defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact in rebuttal.  Plaintiff's medical record does not contradict plaintiff's consistent testimony that he fell because the ladder suddenly moved (see Rodas–Garcia v. NYC United LLC, 225 A.D.3d 556, 557, 207 N.Y.S.3d 473 [1st Dept. 2024]).  Plaintiff's supervisor's testimony that the ladder was still standing when he arrived at the scene of the accident does not undermine plaintiff's proof that the ladder shifted unexpectedly, causing him to fall, and that it was therefore not an adequate safety device for the task at hand (see Hoxhaj v. West 30th HL LLC, 195 A.D.3d 503, 504, 145 N.Y.S.3d 351 [1st Dept. 2021]).