VALAREZO v. HP JAMSTA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FUND COMPANY INC (2026)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lyle E. Frank, J.), entered on or about May 1, 2023, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on liability on their Labor Law § 240(1) claim and granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on liability on their Labor Law § 240(1) claim, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff was injured as he and his coworkers were making bases for cement columns by using a drilling/excavation machine to remove steel bars that had been drilled into the ground.  Plaintiff testified that when removing the bars, a fabric sling was tied to the top of the bar, a hook was placed into the sling, and the drilling/excavation machine lifted the bar away.  As the last bar was being removed, it fell and hit plaintiff.  According to plaintiff's testimony, the bar was standing vertically on the drilling machine and was not secured before the machine moved it.

Supreme Court should have granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on liability on their Labor Law § 240(1) claim.  Plaintiffs demonstrated prima facie entitlement to summary judgment on this claim by submitting evidence establishing that the steel bar was not secured while the excavation/drilling machine was hoisting it out of the ground (see Wilinski v. 334 East 92nd Hous. Dev. Fund Corp., 18 N.Y.3d 1, 5, 935 N.Y.S.2d 551, 959 N.E.2d 488 [2011];  MacGregor v. MRMD N.Y. Corp., 194 A.D.3d 550, 551, 143 N.Y.S.3d 880 [1st Dept. 2021]).  Even though plaintiff testified that he did not see the precise moment that the bar began to fall and was unsure whether a sling was attached to the bar at the time of the accident, he was not obliged to show the exact circumstances under which the object fell (see Harsanyi v. Extell 4110 LLC, 220 A.D.3d 528, 529, 198 N.Y.S.3d 37 [1st Dept. 2023]).  Furthermore, because the equipment used to hoist the steel bar failed to prevent it from falling, plaintiffs were also not obliged to specify the type of safety device that defendants should have provided (see Rubio v. New York Proton Mgt., LLC, 192 A.D.3d 438, 439, 143 N.Y.S.3d 350 [1st Dept. 2021]).

In opposition, defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact.  Plaintiff's unrebutted testimony was sufficient to establish plaintiffs' prima facie case without the necessity of considering various documents that were submitted on plaintiffs' motion (see Marrero v. 2075 Holding Co. LLC, 106 A.D.3d 408, 409, 964 N.Y.S.2d 144 [1st Dept. 2013]).

Because we are granting plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240(1), the arguments related to the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims are academic (see Fanning v. Rockefeller Univ., 106 A.D.3d 484, 485, 964 N.Y.S.2d 525 [1st Dept. 2013]).