Ruben Ortiz v. The City of New York, et al.
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Construction/workplace safety under New York Labor Law § 240(1) [imposes absolute liability on owners and contractors for elevation-related hazards requiring proper safety devices] and § 241(6) [imposes a nondelegable duty to comply with specific Industrial Code regulations]; applicability of Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-1.21(b)(4)(iv) [requirements for leaning ladders] to an A-frame ladder accident.
Supreme Court, Bronx County granted plaintiff summary judgment on liability under § 240(1) and denied defendants' motion to dismiss the § 241(6) claim premised on Industrial Code § 23-1.21(b)(4)(iv).
The portion sustaining the Labor Law § 241(6) claim premised on Industrial Code § 23-1.21(b)(4)(iv) was reversed and that claim was dismissed.
Section 23-1.21(b)(4)(iv) applies only to leaning ladders; plaintiff was using an open, self-supporting A-frame ladder, making the regulation inapplicable. The grant of summary judgment on § 240(1) liability was otherwise affirmed because the unsecured ladder shifted and collapsed for no apparent reason, establishing statutory liability.
Background
Plaintiff Ruben Ortiz fell while working from an unsecured, open A-frame ladder at a construction site. He testified the ladder suddenly moved and tilted, causing him to fall. Hospital records noted he "slid down" after a misstep. Defendants argued comparative negligence and offered an expert opining the accident could not have occurred as described. Plaintiff asserted liability under Labor Law § 240(1) for elevation-related risks and § 241(6) based on Industrial Code § 23-1.21(b)(4)(iv).
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court, Bronx County (Myrna Socorro, J.) granted plaintiff summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240(1), finding the unsecured A-frame ladder that shifted and collapsed established a prima facie case and that comparative negligence was not a defense. The court denied defendants' motion to dismiss the § 241(6) claim premised on Industrial Code § 23-1.21(b)(4)(iv).
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division modified to dismiss the § 241(6) claim predicated on § 23-1.21(b)(4)(iv) because the regulation governs leaning ladders, not self-supporting A-frame ladders. It otherwise affirmed, holding plaintiff established entitlement to summary judgment under § 240(1) where the ladder moved and tipped for no apparent reason, rendering it inadequate protection. Defendants' reliance on a hospital note of a misstep did not create a triable issue, nor did their expert's opinion; comparative negligence is not a defense, and plaintiff need not identify the precise cause of the ladder's movement.
Legal Significance
Reaffirms that a shifting or collapsing A-frame ladder establishes prima facie liability under Labor Law § 240(1) and that comparative negligence and speculative expert opinions do not defeat summary judgment. Clarifies that Industrial Code § 23-1.21(b)(4)(iv) applies only to leaning ladders and cannot sustain a § 241(6) claim when the accident involves an open A-frame ladder.
An unsecured A-frame ladder that shifts and collapses triggers Labor Law § 240(1) liability, while a § 241(6) claim based on the leaning-ladder regulation § 23-1.21(b)(4)(iv) fails where the ladder is an open, self-supporting A-frame.