Wilson Minaya Torres v. 40 East End Ave. Associates LLC, et al.
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Construction site safety involving a pallet jack/hoisting operation and elevation-related risk.
Denied plaintiff's summary judgment on Labor Law § 240(1) and granted defendants' summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Dismissal of the Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) claims was reversed; those claims were reinstated. The denial of plaintiff's own § 240(1) summary judgment and other aspects of the order were otherwise affirmed.
Unresolved factual issues exist as to whether the pallet jack was an adequate safety device under Labor Law § 240(1) [imposes liability on owners and contractors for elevation-related hazards requiring adequate safety devices] and whether a violation of Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-9.8(h) [requires that loaded pallets be kept level at all times] supports the Labor Law § 241(6) [requires owners/contractors to provide reasonable protection and comply with specific Industrial Code regulations] claim. The incident report did not conclusively establish that human error was the sole cause because it did not explain why the lever was released or whether the author witnessed the event.
Background
Plaintiff, guiding a pallet of construction materials being delivered to a worksite, was injured when his coworker used a pallet jack with a hydraulic mechanism to move the load. The wooden pallet broke, the hydraulic machine became stuck on the truck’s edge, and after the coworker freed it, he lost control of the lever, causing the full load to fall onto plaintiff’s foot.
Lower Court Decision
Supreme Court, New York County, accepted defendants’ one-day-late summary judgment filings, denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240(1), and granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in its entirety.
Appellate Division Reversal
Modified to deny defendants’ motion for summary judgment to the extent it sought dismissal of plaintiff’s Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) claims, thereby reinstating those claims. The court otherwise affirmed, including the denial of plaintiff’s own § 240(1) motion and the acceptance of defendants’ late submissions due to good cause and lack of prejudice.
Legal Significance
Clarifies that a pallet jack used to move a heavy load can function as a safety device under Labor Law § 240(1), and defects or inadequacy in such equipment during a gravity-related hoisting operation present triable issues precluding summary judgment. Incident reports that do not explain the cause of a worker’s actions and are authored by non-witnesses may raise, not resolve, issues of fact. Under Labor Law § 241(6), a violation premised on 12 NYCRR § 23-9.8(h) can be viable where a broken pallet may render a load unlevel. Courts may accept minimally late summary judgment filings upon a showing of good cause and no prejudice.
Both sides’ bids for a conclusive ruling on liability failed: defendants’ dismissal of the Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) claims was reversed due to factual disputes about the pallet jack’s adequacy and pallet leveling, while plaintiff’s own § 240(1) motion remained denied. The claims proceed to further litigation.