AGUILAR v. 58 GERRY ST LLC (2025)

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant 58 Gerry St, LLC, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Joy F. Campanelli, J.), dated March 27, 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) insofar as asserted against the defendant 58 Gerry St, LLC.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In December 2018, the plaintiff allegedly sustained injuries when he fell from a ladder after the ladder shifted underneath him when it was struck by a falling metal object.

The plaintiff commenced this personal injury action against, among others, the defendant 58 Gerry St, LLC (hereinafter the defendant), asserting, inter alia, a cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240(1).  The plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240(1) insofar as asserted against the defendant.  The defendant opposed the motion.  In an order dated March 27, 2024, the Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's motion.  The defendant appeals.

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’ ” (Flores v. Fort Green Homes, LLC, 227 A.D.3d 672, 673, 210 N.Y.S.3d 455, quoting Castano v. Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC, 213 A.D.3d 905, 907, 184 N.Y.S.3d 816).  “Not every worker who falls at a construction site, and not every object that falls on a worker gives rise to the extraordinary protections of Labor Law § 240(1)” (Narducci v. Manhasset Bay Assoc., 96 N.Y.2d 259, 267, 727 N.Y.S.2d 37, 750 N.E.2d 1085).  Rather, “liability is contingent upon the existence of a hazard contemplated in section 240(1) and the failure to use, or the inadequacy of, a safety device of the kind enumerated therein” (id.).  “Labor Law § 240 applies to both the ‘falling worker’ and ‘falling object’ cases” (id.).

To prevail on a cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240(1), “ ‘a plaintiff must prove that the defendant violated the statute and that such violation was a proximate cause of his or her injuries’ ” (Lopes v. County of Suffolk, 236 A.D.3d 883, 884, 229 N.Y.S.3d 573, quoting Von Hegel v. Brixmor Sunshine Sq., LLC, 180 A.D.3d 727, 728, 115 N.Y.S.3d 712).  Once a plaintiff makes a prima facie showing “ ‘the burden then shifts to the defendant, who may defeat [the] plaintiff's motion for summary judgment only if there is a plausible view of the evidence—enough to raise a fact question—that there was no statutory violation and that [the] plaintiff's own acts or omissions were the sole cause of the accident’ ” (Lopes v. County of Suffolk, 236 A.D.3d at 884, 229 N.Y.S.3d 573, quoting Blake v. Neighborhood Hous. Services of New York City, Inc., 1 N.Y.3d 280, 289 n. 8, 771 N.Y.S.2d 484, 803 N.E.2d 757).

When an accident involves a worker falling off of a ladder, “ ‘liability will be imposed when the evidence shows that the subject ladder was ․ inadequately secured and that ․ the failure to secure the ladder was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff's injuries’ ” (Wright v. Pennings, 233 A.D.3d 827, 828, 223 N.Y.S.3d 259 [alteration omitted], quoting Mora v. 1–10 Bush Term. Owner, L.P., 214 A.D.3d 785, 786, 186 N.Y.S.3d 51).

Here, the plaintiff demonstrated 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) insofar as asserted against the defendant by submitting evidence, including a transcript of his deposition testimony, which established that the ladder shifted from underneath him when it was hit by a metal object, causing him to fall (see Cevallos v. WBB Constr., Inc., 227 A.D.3d 657, 658–659, 210 N.Y.S.3d 442;  Mora v. 1–10 Bush Term. Owner, L.P., 214 A.D.3d at 786–787, 186 N.Y.S.3d 51;  Morocho v. Plainview–Old Bethpage Cent. Sch. Dist., 116 A.D.3d 935, 936, 984 N.Y.S.2d 120).  In opposition, the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Cevallo v. WBB Constr., Inc., 227 A.D.3d at 659, 210 N.Y.S.3d 442).

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) insofar as asserted against the defendant.

The defendant's remaining contentions need not be reached in light of our determination.

BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, TAYLOR and MCCORMACK, JJ., concur.