Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Vasilios PIERRAKEAS, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. 137 EAST 38TH STREET LLC, Defendant–Appellant.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (James E. d'Auguste, J.), entered February 5, 2019, which granted plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Whether plaintiff slipped from the rung of the ladder or the ladder tipped over as he sought to steady himself while descending it, plaintiff's testimony established prima facie that defendant failed to provide a safety device to insure that the ladder would remain upright while plaintiff used it to perform his statutorily covered work; plaintiff was not required to show that the ladder was defective (Labor Law § 240[1]; see e.g. Fletcher v. Brookfield Props., 145 A.D.3d 434, 41 N.Y.S.3d 700 [1st Dept. 2016] [plaintiff not required to demonstrate that unsecured ladder that kicked out while he descended it was defective]; Caceres v. Standard Realty Assoc., Inc., 131 A.D.3d 433, 433–34, 15 N.Y.S.3d 338 [1st Dept. 2015] [liability under Labor Law § 240(1) established where plaintiff fell from non-defective ladder not being held steady by coworker], appeal dismissed 26 N.Y.3d 1021, 20 N.Y.S.3d 333, 41 N.E.3d 1149 [2015]; Orellano v. 29 E. 37th St. Realty Corp., 292 A.D.2d 289, 290–291, 740 N.Y.S.2d 16 [1st Dept. 2002] [liability established where plaintiff showed absence of safety devices to prevent ladder from slipping or plaintiff from falling; no need to show ladder was defective] ).
In opposition, defendant failed to raise an issue of fact as to whether plaintiff's placement of the ladder where he could fall or step onto a stack of sheetrock was the sole proximate cause of his accident, since it presented no evidence that the appropriate equipment was available to plaintiff (see Nacewicz v. Roman Catholic Church of the Holy Cross, 105 A.D.3d 402, 402–403, 963 N.Y.S.2d 14 [1st Dept. 2013]). Moreover, because plaintiff established that defendant failed to provide an adequate safety device to protect him from elevation-related risks and that that failure was a proximate cause of his injuries, any negligence on plaintiff's part in placing the ladder near the sheetrock is of no consequence (Rocovich v. Consolidated Edison Co., 78 N.Y.2d 509, 513, 577 N.Y.S.2d 219, 583 N.E.2d 932 [1991]).
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: 10451
Decided: November 26, 2019
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)