CASTRO v. CITY OF NEW YORK (2026)

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Myrna Socorro, J.), entered on or about December 27, 2024, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the common-law negligence and Labor Law §§ 200 and 240(1) claims, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff was injured when a scaffold she was using rolled and one of its legs went into a “hole” or “rebar area,” causing the scaffold to tip over and onto her.  That plaintiff was standing on the same level as the scaffold that fell on her does not preclude liability under Labor Law § 240(1) (see Wilinski v. 334 E. 92nd Hous. Dev. Fund Corp., 18 N.Y.3d 1, 9, 935 N.Y.S.2d 551, 959 N.E.2d 488 [2011];  Hyatt v. Queens W. Dev. Corp., 194 A.D.3d 548, 548–549, 143 N.Y.S.3d 878 [1st Dept. 2021] ).  Defendants failed to establish that plaintiff was a recalcitrant worker and the sole proximate of her accident in the absence of evidence that she was instructed to lock the scaffold's wheels each time she loaded buckets of water onto the scaffold (see Noor v. City of New York, 130 A.D.3d 536, 540, 15 N.Y.S.3d 13 [1st Dept. 2015], lv dismissed 27 N.Y.3d 975, 31 N.Y.S.3d 451, 50 N.E.3d 919 [2016] ).

There are also questions of fact precluding summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims.  “Where an existing defect or dangerous condition caused the injury, liability attaches if the owner or general contractor created the condition or had actual or constructive notice of it” (Cappabianca v. Skanska USA Bldg. Inc., 99 A.D.3d 139, 144, 950 N.Y.S.2d 35 [1st Dept. 2012] ).  Defendants failed to meet their burden of demonstrating that they lacked notice of the “hole” or “rebar area” by failing to provide evidence regarding when the accident location was last inspected before the accident (see Bolson v. UJA–FED Props., Inc., 224 A.D.3d 584, 585, 205 N.Y.S.3d 380 [1st Dept. 2024] ).