Rolka v Neelam Construction Corporation
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Construction site injury involving a claimed falling-object violation of Labor Law § 240(1) [Scaffold Law imposing a nondelegable duty and absolute liability on owners and general contractors that fail to provide necessary safety devices protecting workers from elevation-related risks].
The Supreme Court, Queens County, granted the plaintiff summary judgment on liability on his Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action.
The Appellate Division reversed the order insofar as appealed from and denied that branch of the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240(1) liability.
The plaintiff did not establish as a matter of law what object struck him or where it came from, leaving triable issues as to whether the accident involved a covered elevation-related hazard and whether the injury resulted from the absence or inadequacy of a statutorily required safety device.
Background
The plaintiff, an employee of subcontractor Ladi Construction, was performing waterproofing, demolition, and debris removal work at Long Island City High School in Queens. While bent over picking up debris from one scaffold positioned beneath another scaffold occupied by demolition workers, he was struck in the back of the head by an unidentified object. He then sued the defendants for personal injuries, including a claim under Labor Law § 240(1).
Lower Court Decision
By order dated May 24, 2024, the Supreme Court, Queens County, granted the plaintiff summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240(1), concluding that he had established entitlement to judgment on that cause of action.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division held that the plaintiff failed to meet his prima facie burden. His proof did not identify the object that struck him or its origin, so it did not conclusively show that the accident arose from a physically significant elevation differential or that the object fell because of the absence or inadequacy of an enumerated safety device. Because the plaintiff's own submissions left material factual issues unresolved, summary judgment should have been denied regardless of the defendants' opposition papers.
Legal Significance
This decision reinforces that in a falling-object claim under Labor Law § 240(1), a plaintiff must do more than show that an object fell and caused injury. The plaintiff must demonstrate that the object was being hoisted or secured, or required securing for the work, and that the accident was caused by the lack or inadequacy of a covered safety device. Uncertainty about the object's identity or source can defeat summary judgment.
A worker seeking summary judgment under Labor Law § 240(1) in a falling-object case must present concrete proof of the object's source, the elevation-related risk, and the missing or inadequate safety device; otherwise, factual questions will preclude judgment as a matter of law.