Jonathan Llerena v. 975 Park Avenue Corp. et al.
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Construction site safety under New York Labor Law § 240(1) [imposes absolute liability on owners and contractors for failure to provide adequate safety devices to protect workers from elevation-related risks], § 241(6) [imposes a nondelegable duty to comply with specific Industrial Code safety regulations], § 200 [codifies the common-law duty to provide a safe workplace; liability turns on supervision/control of the work or notice of a dangerous condition], and Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-5.8(g) [requires suspended scaffolds to be properly secured/anchored to prevent movement].
The Supreme Court, Bronx County dismissed plaintiff’s Labor Law § 240(1) claim against the moving defendants, dismissed the common-law negligence and § 200 claims only as against 975 Park and Greenthal (but not Nova), and denied plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on § 240(1) and on § 241(6) insofar as predicated on § 23-5.8(g).
The dismissal of the Labor Law § 240(1) claim was reversed, and plaintiff was granted partial summary judgment on that claim; additionally, the court granted dismissal of the common-law negligence and § 200 claims as against Nova.
The suspended scaffold was inadequately secured and shifted about one foot away from the building, causing the chipping hammer to slip and injure plaintiff—an injury flowing directly from the failure of a safety device meant to protect against elevation-related risks, triggering § 240(1) liability. As to Nova, plaintiff’s foreman exclusively directed the work; Nova exercised no actual supervision or control, and its general site-safety and contractual right to control were insufficient for common-law negligence or § 200 liability.
Background
Plaintiff, a facade repair worker, was standing on a suspended scaffold performing exterior work when the scaffold suddenly moved approximately one foot away from the building. The movement caused the tip of his chipping hammer to slip into a hole where a brick had been removed, injuring his shoulder and causing him to fall onto the scaffold platform.
Lower Court Decision
The trial court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims only as to 975 Park and Greenthal, dismissed plaintiff’s Labor Law § 240(1) claim against all moving defendants, and denied plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on § 240(1) and on § 241(6) predicated on Industrial Code § 23-5.8(g).
Appellate Division Reversal
Unanimously modified: (1) defendants’ motion to dismiss the Labor Law § 240(1) claim was denied, and plaintiff was granted partial summary judgment on § 240(1); (2) defendants’ motion to dismiss the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims was granted as against Nova; (3) the Labor Law § 241(6) claim was deemed academic in light of the § 240(1) disposition; otherwise affirmed.
Legal Significance
Confirms that a suspended scaffold’s unanticipated movement that injures a worker constitutes a prototypical elevation-related risk imposing liability under Labor Law § 240(1). Also reiterates that a general contractor’s general site-safety role or contractual right to control, without evidence of actual supervision or control over the means and methods of the work, is insufficient for common-law negligence or § 200 liability; where § 240(1) fully resolves the claim, a related § 241(6) theory may be academic.
An inadequately secured suspended scaffold that shifts and causes injury establishes Labor Law § 240(1) liability as a matter of law; absent evidence of actual supervisory control, a general contractor is not liable under common-law negligence or § 200.