Pablo E. Molina v. Chatham Towers, Inc.
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Worksite safety in construction/maintenance: fall from an unsecured A-frame ladder while removing insulation from ceiling pipes.
Denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240(1).
The denial of plaintiff's summary judgment motion on liability under Labor Law § 240(1).
Plaintiff established that the unsecured ladder shifted and fell, causing his injuries, and defendant failed to provide adequate safety devices as required by Labor Law § 240(1) [New York's Scaffold Law imposing a nondelegable duty on owners and contractors to provide safety devices to protect workers from elevation-related hazards]. The accident being unwitnessed did not preclude summary judgment, and there was no evidence contradicting plaintiff's account or raising a material credibility issue.
Background
Plaintiff was instructed to use an A-frame ladder to remove insulation coverings from ceiling pipes. The supervisor set up the ladder, identified which coverings to remove, and left the room. While plaintiff worked at the top of the unsecured ladder, it suddenly shifted and fell, throwing him to the floor and injuring his shoulder. Plaintiff stood the ladder upright before the supervisor returned. Upon returning, the supervisor found plaintiff next to the upright ladder and heard plaintiff report that the ladder was shaky and fell because no one was holding it. Both plaintiff and the supervisor confirmed that plaintiff had been using the ladder to perform the assigned task.
Lower Court Decision
Supreme Court, New York County (Latin, J.) denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240(1).
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division unanimously reversed, granted plaintiff summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240(1), and held that defendant failed to provide a safety device to keep the ladder stable. Plaintiff’s testimony that the unsecured ladder shifted and fell made a prima facie showing; he was not required to prove a specific ladder defect. The absence of eyewitnesses did not bar judgment, and the supervisor’s testimony did not contradict plaintiff’s account. Defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact.
Legal Significance
Reaffirms that a worker’s uncontradicted testimony of a ladder shift/fall while performing elevation-related work establishes a prima facie Labor Law § 240(1) violation without proof of a specific defect. An unwitnessed accident can support summary judgment where the record does not undermine credibility, and a later-observed upright ladder does not create a factual dispute when the worker explains he reset it.
When an unsecured ladder shifts and causes a fall during elevation-related work, the worker is entitled to summary judgment under Labor Law § 240(1) if the testimony is unrefuted; no showing of a defective ladder or eyewitness is required.