Kelly v RBSL Realty, LLC
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Construction-site injury involving a crane-lowered, 800–1000-pound concrete light pole base that allegedly jerked during hoisting and struck the worker in a trench.
The Supreme Court, Suffolk County, denied the RBSL defendants' motion for summary judgment and denied the pertinent branch of Potente's motion, allowing Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), 241(6), and common-law negligence claims to proceed.
On appeal, the court modified by granting RBSL Realty, LLC, Landtek Group, Inc., and Williams Scotsman, Inc. summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 200 [codifies the common-law duty to provide a safe workplace] and common-law negligence claims against them; all other denials of summary judgment were affirmed.
RBSL/Lessee/Manager showed they did not supervise or control the injury-producing work (general oversight is insufficient for § 200), warranting dismissal of § 200 and negligence claims against them. But defendants failed to eliminate triable issues under Labor Law § 240(1) [provides extraordinary protections to workers against elevation-related risks requiring adequate safety devices] because the heavy object was being hoisted above the plaintiff and allegedly moved suddenly, and under Labor Law § 241(6) [imposes a duty to comply with specific Industrial Code regulations] because they did not show the cited Industrial Code provisions were inapplicable. Potente failed to establish it lacked supervisory control over the crane/hoisting operation. The RBSL defendants also failed to secure dismissal of indemnification and contribution cross-claims because they did not submit the contracts and did not establish absence of negligence or independent duty.
Background
In August 2014, John Kelly, an employee of Palace Electric Contractors, was guiding a concrete light pole base while standing in a hole as a Potente-provided crane lowered the base into place at a Medford construction site. Palace was hired by project manager Landtek Group, Inc., which had been hired by lessee Williams Scotsman, Inc.; Williams Scotsman leased the property from RBSL Realty, LLC. Kelly alleges the base suddenly jerked and struck him. He sued RBSL, Landtek, Williams Scotsman, and John E. Potente & Sons, Inc. for violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), 241(6), and common-law negligence.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court, Suffolk County, denied the RBSL defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint and cross-claims against them, and denied the branch of Potente's motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint against it.
Appellate Division Reversal
Modified on the law to grant RBSL Realty, LLC, Landtek Group, Inc., and Williams Scotsman, Inc. summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 200 [codifies the common-law duty to provide a safe workplace] and common-law negligence claims, and otherwise affirmed. Summary judgment was properly denied to all defendants on Labor Law § 240(1) [provides extraordinary protections to workers against elevation-related risks requiring adequate safety devices] and § 241(6) [imposes a duty to comply with specific Industrial Code regulations]. Potente was not entitled to summary judgment on § 200 and common-law negligence due to triable issues of supervisory control over the hoisting operation. The RBSL defendants were not entitled to dismissal of cross-claims for contractual indemnification (no contracts submitted), common-law indemnification (failure to establish absence of negligence), or contribution (failure to establish no independent duty).
Legal Significance
Reaffirms that a hoisted object that suddenly moves during lowering can present an elevation-related risk within Labor Law § 240(1). Clarifies that general supervisory rights and the ability to stop work do not constitute the requisite supervision or control for Labor Law § 200 liability. Emphasizes that defendants seeking dismissal of § 241(6) claims must show the inapplicability or compliance with specific Industrial Code provisions. Underscores that contractual indemnification cannot be resolved on summary judgment without the contract, and that dismissal of indemnity/contribution requires a prima facie showing of no negligence or independent duty.
Owners/lessees/managers without direct control over the injury-producing work can defeat Labor Law § 200 and negligence claims, but § 240(1) and § 241(6) claims will survive where a hoisted heavy object causes injury and defendants cannot negate the Industrial Code or elevation-risk elements; indemnification issues require the actual contracts and proof negating negligence.