ACATILA v. REALLY NEAT REALTY INC (2025)

DECISION & ORDER

In a consolidated action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Richard J. Montelione, J.), dated January 19, 2024.  The order granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240(1).

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The plaintiff commenced an action against the defendant Really Neat Realty, Inc., and a separate action against the defendants Bigman Brothers, Inc., and Meathway Contracting, Inc., alleging, inter alia, a violation of Labor Law § 240(1).  The two actions were later consolidated.  Thereafter, the plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240(1).  By order dated January 19, 2024, the Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's motion.  The defendants appeal.

“Labor Law § 240(1) ‘imposes on owners or general contractors and their agents a nondelegable duty, and absolute liability for injuries proximately caused by the failure to provide appropriate safety devices to workers who are subject to elevation-related risks’ ” (Keen v. Tishman Constr. Corp. of N.Y., 233 A.D.3d 1001, 1002, 224 N.Y.S.3d 131, quoting Saint v. Syracuse Supply Co., 25 N.Y.3d 117, 124, 8 N.Y.S.3d 229, 30 N.E.3d 872;  see Valentin v. Stathakos, 228 A.D.3d 985, 989, 213 N.Y.S.3d 190).  “ ‘To prevail on a Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action, a plaintiff must establish that the statute was violated and that the violation proximately caused his or her injuries’ ” (Keen v. Tishman Constr. Corp. of N.Y., 233 A.D.3d at 1002, 224 N.Y.S.3d 131, quoting Fuentes v. 257 Toppings Path, LLC, 225 A.D.3d 746, 748, 207 N.Y.S.3d 582).

“ ‘The collapse of a scaffold or ladder for no apparent reason while a plaintiff is engaged in an activity enumerated under the statute creates a presumption that the ladder or scaffold did not afford proper protection’ ” (Valentin v. Stathakos, 228 A.D.3d at 989, 213 N.Y.S.3d 190, quoting Cruz v. Roman Catholic Church of St. Gerard Magella in Borough of Queens in the City of N.Y., 174 A.D.3d 782, 783, 106 N.Y.S.3d 389).  “To establish a violation under Labor Law § 240(1), ‘[t]here must be evidence that the ladder was defective or inadequately secured and that the defect, or the failure to secure the ladder, was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff's injuries’ ” (Cioffi v. Target Corp., 188 A.D.3d 788, 791, 134 N.Y.S.3d 408, quoting Hugo v. Sarantakos, 108 A.D.3d 744, 745, 970 N.Y.S.2d 245;  see Salinas v. 64 Jefferson Apts., LLC, 170 A.D.3d 1216, 1222, 97 N.Y.S.3d 136).  “[W]here a ladder slides, shifts, tips over, or otherwise collapses for no apparent reason, the plaintiff has established a violation” (Cioffi v. Target Corp., 188 A.D.3d at 791, 134 N.Y.S.3d 408;  see Salinas v. 64 Jefferson Apts., LLC, 170 A.D.3d at 1222, 97 N.Y.S.3d 136).

Here, the plaintiff established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability on the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240(1) by submitting evidence that the ladder on which he was standing moved for no apparent reason, causing him to fall (see Cioffi v. Target Corp., 188 A.D.3d at 791, 134 N.Y.S.3d 408;  Salinas v. 64 Jefferson Apts., LLC, 170 A.D.3d at 1222, 97 N.Y.S.3d 136).  In opposition, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Masmalaj v. New York City Economic Dev. Corp., 197 A.D.3d 1292, 1293, 154 N.Y.S.3d 111;  Cabrera v. Arrow Steel Window Corp., 163 A.D.3d 758, 759–760, 82 N.Y.S.3d 444).

The defendants’ remaining contentions are without merit.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240(1).

DUFFY, J.P., MILLER, CHRISTOPHER and WAN, JJ., concur.