ROBERT HIPPERT AND MICHELLE HIPPERT PLAINTIFFS RESPONDENTS v. RETTENMAIER USA LP AND RETTENMAIER AMERICA INC DEFENDANTS APPELLANTS (2026)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiffs commenced this Labor Law and common-law negligence action seeking damages for injuries Robert F. Hippert (plaintiff) sustained when a steel grate fell five to eight feet from a catwalk and struck plaintiff. At the time the grate fell, the catwalk was being hoisted by plaintiff's coworker using an aerial lift machine to permit plaintiff to secure the catwalk to a dust collector.

Plaintiffs moved for, inter alia, partial summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). As limited by their brief, defendants appeal from that part of an order granting the motion with respect to that issue. We affirm.

Contrary to defendants’ contention, Supreme Court properly granted plaintiffs’ motion insofar as it sought partial summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). Plaintiffs established, and defendants do not dispute, that defendants were “owners” for the purposes of Labor Law § 240 (1). Plaintiffs also established that defendants violated Labor Law § 240 (1) and that such violation was a proximate cause of plaintiff's injuries (see generally Zimmer v Chemung County Performing Arts, 65 NY2d 513, 524 [1985], rearg denied 65 NY2d 1054 [1985]). To that end, plaintiffs established that the grate was a falling object, “that at the time the object fell, it either was being ‘hoisted or secured’ ․, or ‘required securing for the purposes of the undertaking’ ” (Fabrizi v 1095 Ave. of the Ams., L.L.C., 22 NY3d 658, 662-663 [2014]), and “that the object fell because of the absence or inadequacy of a safety device to guard against a risk involving the application of the force of gravity over a physically significant elevation differential” (Vicki v City of Niagara Falls, 215 AD3d 1285, 1287 [4th Dept 2023] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Fabrizi, 22 NY3d at 663; Floyd v New York State Thruway Auth., 125 AD3d 1456, 1457 [4th Dept 2015]).

We have reviewed defendants’ remaining contentions and conclude that none warrants modification or reversal of the order.

Entered: July 24, 2026

Ann Dillon Flynn

Clerk of the Court