Michael Lamica, II v. Patricia A. Siskar and Bakk Ventures, LLC
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Construction/roofing workplace safety and New York Labor Law liability for elevation-related risks during roof repair.
The trial court denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment, denied plaintiff’s cross‑motion on Labor Law § 240(1) [requires owners and contractors to provide elevation-related safety devices to protect workers at elevated sites], granted plaintiff’s cross‑motion on Labor Law § 241(6) [imposes a nondelegable duty on owners and contractors to comply with specific Industrial Code regulations], and dismissed the complaint against Bakk Ventures, LLC by stipulation.
On appeal, the court dismissed the Labor Law § 200 [codifies the common-law duty to provide a safe place to work] and common-law negligence causes of action as abandoned and reversed the grant of summary judgment to plaintiff on Labor Law § 241(6), denying plaintiff’s cross‑motion in its entirety.
Plaintiff abandoned the § 200 and negligence claims by failing to oppose dismissal; triable issues of fact remain on §§ 240(1) and 241(6), including the placement/adequacy of tie‑off brackets and whether plaintiff’s failure to use them was the sole proximate cause. The appeal by Bakk Ventures was dismissed under CPLR 5511 [only an aggrieved party may appeal].
Background
Plaintiff, employed by a roofing contractor, fell from the roof of a building owned by Patricia A. Siskar while performing roof repairs. The record indicates tie‑off brackets were installed on the roof. The parties disputed whether the brackets were properly located to provide adequate fall protection and whether plaintiff failed to use them at the time of his fall, raising a potential sole‑proximate‑cause defense.
Lower Court Decision
Supreme Court, Erie County, denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment in full; denied plaintiff’s cross‑motion as to Labor Law § 240(1); granted plaintiff’s cross‑motion as to Labor Law § 241(6); and dismissed the complaint against Bakk Ventures, LLC by stipulation.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division dismissed Bakk Ventures’ appeal (CPLR 5511) and modified: granted defendants’ motion in part by dismissing the first and second causes of action (Labor Law § 200 and common‑law negligence) as abandoned; denied plaintiff’s cross‑motion in its entirety, thereby vacating the grant of summary judgment on § 241(6); and otherwise affirmed. The court held issues of fact precluded summary judgment on § 240(1) and § 241(6), including whether tie‑off brackets afforded proper protection and whether plaintiff’s nonuse was the sole proximate cause.
Legal Significance
The decision underscores that summary judgment under the ‘Scaffold Law’ (Labor Law § 240(1)) and § 241(6) is inappropriate where factual disputes exist regarding the availability/adequacy of safety devices and sole proximate cause. It also reaffirms that unopposed claims may be deemed abandoned (§ 200 and negligence here), and that only aggrieved parties may appeal under CPLR 5511.
In New York Labor Law roof‑fall cases, contested facts about safety device placement and worker use can defeat both sides’ summary judgment motions; failure to oppose can forfeit (§ 200/negligence) claims, and non-aggrieved parties cannot appeal.