Lenicio Robles v. 53-63 Walton LLC, et al.
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Construction site fall from an unsecured ladder; application of New York Labor Law § 240(1) [imposes a nondelegable duty on owners and contractors to provide proper protection against elevation-related risks; liability attaches when a statutory violation is a proximate cause of the injury] and § 241(6) [requires owners and contractors to provide reasonable and adequate protection and comply with specific Industrial Code regulations].
The Supreme Court, Bronx County denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240(1) and denied defendants’ cross-motion to dismiss the Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) claims.
The denial of plaintiff’s motion was modified to grant summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240(1).
Plaintiff’s unrebutted testimony showed the only available ladder was loose and lacked rubber feet; all four feet rested on the floor; and the ladder shifted while in use, evidencing the absence of a secured, adequate safety device. His use of a stair railing for foot placement did not render him the sole proximate cause because site conditions required that configuration and feasible alternatives were not available. Comparative fault does not bar recovery under Labor Law § 240(1).
Background
Plaintiff, performing sanding work near a stairwell, was provided only one ladder, which he described as loose and without rubber feet. Positioned with all four feet on the floor, the ladder shifted while he worked. He at times placed a foot on the stair railing due to the configuration of the workspace and because an extender or placing the ladder atop the stairs was not feasible. He fell and sustained injuries.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court, Bronx County (Myrna Socorro, J.) denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240(1) liability and denied defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) claims.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division unanimously modified, on the law, to grant plaintiff summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240(1), and otherwise affirmed. Based on this determination, the parties’ arguments concerning Labor Law § 241(6) were deemed academic.
Legal Significance
The decision reinforces that a plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment under Labor Law § 240(1) when an unsecured, unstable ladder without adequate safety features shifts and causes a fall. A worker’s method—such as using a railing for support dictated by site constraints—does not establish sole proximate cause where safer alternatives were not provided or feasible. Comparative negligence is not a defense to § 240(1) liability.
An unsecured ladder that shifts, especially one lacking rubber feet, establishes Labor Law § 240(1) liability as a matter of law; a worker’s necessary use of a railing due to workspace constraints does not defeat recovery, and comparative fault is irrelevant.