Neto v Buddies Bro, LLC
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Construction-site injury involving an alleged elevation-related accident during building construction and whether the worker was entitled to summary judgment under Labor Law § 240(1) [imposes a nondelegable duty on owners, contractors, and their agents to provide workers with proper protection from elevation-related hazards].
The Supreme Court, Kings County, granted the plaintiff summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240(1) against Buddies Bro, LLC and Townhouse Builders, Inc.
The Appellate Division reversed the order and denied that branch of the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240(1).
Although the plaintiff made a prima facie showing that no scaffold or ladder was provided for exterior use, the defendants raised a triable issue of fact by offering evidence that a six-foot ladder and other safety devices had been provided, that the plaintiff may have known they were available, and that he instead chose to climb the scissor clamps, creating a factual issue as to sole proximate cause.
Background
The plaintiff, a carpenter employed by Magellan Concrete Structures, was working on a building under construction at premises owned by Buddies Bro, LLC, with Townhouse Builders, Inc. serving as general contractor. He testified that he was stripping the second-floor ceiling by removing the material used as a base for pouring cement. While climbing down a cement column on the side of the building using scissor clamps attached to the column, he slipped and fell. His personal fall arrest system stopped him from hitting the ground, but he struck the building's exterior wall and allegedly lost consciousness.
Lower Court Decision
The lower court held that the plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240(1), concluding that the defendants failed to provide proper protection against the elevation-related risk.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division held that summary judgment for the plaintiff was improper because the defendants submitted evidence sufficient to raise a factual dispute. Specifically, they showed that safety devices, including a six-foot ladder, may have been available and known to the plaintiff, and that he may have disregarded those devices and descended by climbing scissor clamps near the building's edge.
Legal Significance
This decision reinforces that even where a plaintiff shows an elevation-related injury under Labor Law § 240(1), summary judgment is not automatic. A defendant can defeat summary judgment by raising a triable issue that adequate safety devices were provided and that the worker's failure to use them may have been the sole proximate cause of the accident.
In New York construction-accident cases under Labor Law § 240(1), a worker's motion for summary judgment can be denied where evidence suggests that proper safety equipment was available but not used, leaving a factual question on sole proximate cause.