ARIAS v. 139 EAST 56TH STREET LANDLORD LLC (2023)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lyle E. Frank, J.), entered on or about August 3, 2022, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on Labor Law § 240(1) liability, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted.

Plaintiff was cutting wooden beams with a chainsaw on the roof during the demolition of a building when the chainsaw got stuck, causing him to fall 10–to–15 feet below.  According to plaintiff, his safety harness and retractable lanyard, which were tied off to an adjacent wooden beam, caught him and prevented him from hitting the floor below.  As he fell, plaintiff hit his head on a wooden beam.  Plaintiff also suffered injuries to his right shoulder and back from the harness and lanyard catching him.  Defendant 139 East 56th Street Landlord, LLC owned the building and defendant Hunter Roberts Construction Group, LLC was the general contractor, who subcontracted with nonparty Titan Industrial Services Corp., plaintiff's employer, for demolition work.

Plaintiff was entitled to partial summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240(1) claim.  The record establishes that the safety devices “proved inadequate to shield the injured worker from harm directly flowing from the application of the force of gravity” (Ross v. Curtis–Palmer Hydro–Elec. Co., 81 N.Y.2d 494, 501, 601 N.Y.S.2d 49, 618 N.E.2d 82 [1993]).  The fact that plaintiff sustained injuries to his right shoulder and back when his body was caused to be pulled back up abruptly by his safety harness and lanyard demonstrates lack of adequate protection (see Stigall v. State of New York, 189 A.D.3d 469, 470, 136 N.Y.S.3d 275 [1st Dept. 2020];  Kyle v. City of New York, 268 A.D.2d 192, 197–198, 707 N.Y.S.2d 445 [1st Dept. 2000], lv denied 97 N.Y.2d 608, 739 N.Y.S.2d 97, 765 N.E.2d 300 [2002]).  Defendants’ contention that a triable issue of fact exists as to whether plaintiff hit the floor below is unavailing, where, as here, the statute was violated under either version of the accident (see Romanczuk v. Metropolitan Ins. & Annuity Co., 72 A.D.3d 592, 592, 899 N.Y.S.2d 228 [1st Dept. 2010]).