BUCKLEY v. LLC (2026)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Nicholas W. Moyne, J.), entered May 21, 2024, which, to the extent appealed from, denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on their Labor Law § 240(1) claim and granted the motion of defendant The Hearst Corporation to dismiss the Labor Law § 240(1) claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff Sean Buckley, an ironworker's foreman, was injured while he was assisting a consulting engineer who was conducting an inspection of exterior façade remediation work on a building owned by Hearst.  At the time of the inspection, plaintiff's employer had already completed the remediation work.  Plaintiff, along with the engineer hired by Hearst to conduct the inspection, used a building maintenance unit, a motorized scaffold, to ascend the building to examine the façade.  As the building maintenance unit reached the 18th floor, its primary braking system failed and it began to descend under the control of the secondary braking system.  As it did so, it hit a skylight on the building, allegedly causing plaintiff to sustain injuries.

Supreme Court properly denied plaintiffs’ motion and dismissed the Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action.  At the time of the incident plaintiff was not engaged in work covered by Labor Law § 240(1).  Rather, plaintiff was present at the site to answer questions while the consulting engineer hired by Hearst inspected the facade work, which had already been completed (see Cunningham v. City of New York, 237 A.D.3d 422, 422, 231 N.Y.S.3d 450 [1st Dept. 2025];  Fabrizio v. City of New York, 306 A.D.2d 87, 87–88, 762 N.Y.S.2d 41 [1st Dept. 2003]).  That the inspection might have revealed the need for additional work to complete the contract does not change the analysis, since any necessary additional work was to be done at a later date, after plaintiff's role was complete (see Martinez v. City of New York, 93 N.Y.2d 322, 325–326, 690 N.Y.S.2d 524, 712 N.E.2d 689 [1999];  Harnisch v. City of New York, 236 A.D.3d 516, 516, 230 N.Y.S.3d 83 [1st Dept. 2025]).

We have considered the remaining arguments and find them unavailing.