Correa v NY Developers & Management, LLC
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Construction-site injury liability involving a worker who fell from a scaffold while assisting a plumber.
The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability on his Labor Law § 240(1) [imposes a nondelegable duty on owners, contractors, and their agents to provide workers with proper protection from elevation-related hazards] cause of action.
The Appellate Division reversed the order insofar as appealed from and granted the plaintiff summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240(1).
The plaintiff's deposition testimony established that the scaffold lacked safety rails, no adequate safety device was provided, and kickback from the hammer drill caused the scaffold to wobble and collapse, leading to his fall. The defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition.
Background
The plaintiff alleged that he was injured at a worksite when he fell from a scaffold while assisting a plumber. He testified that the scaffold lacked safety rails and that he had not been provided with another appropriate safety device. According to the plaintiff, kickback from the hammer drill he was using caused the scaffold to wobble and collapse, resulting in his fall and injuries. He sued the defendants for personal injuries, including a claim under Labor Law § 240(1).
Lower Court Decision
After discovery, the plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action. The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied that branch of the motion.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division held that the plaintiff made a prima facie showing of a Labor Law § 240(1) violation and proximate cause through his deposition testimony describing the unsafe scaffold and the absence of proper fall protection. Citing similar scaffold-fall cases, the court concluded that the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact. It therefore reversed the order insofar as appealed from and granted the plaintiff summary judgment on liability.
Legal Significance
This decision reinforces that a worker may obtain summary judgment under Labor Law § 240(1) where undisputed evidence shows a scaffold-related elevation risk, inadequate protective devices, and a causal connection between the statutory violation and the injury. A plaintiff's deposition testimony alone can be sufficient when the defense cannot point to evidence creating a factual dispute.
When a worker falls from an unstable scaffold lacking safety rails or other proper protection, and the defense cannot rebut the worker's account with evidence creating a genuine factual issue, liability under Labor Law § 240(1) may be decided in the worker's favor as a matter of law.