Riley v Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (David H. Koch Center)
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
A construction worker at a hospital project fell on a defective permanent staircase during the COVID-19 pandemic, raising whether Labor Law § 240(1) [protects workers from gravity-related hazards] applies when a permanent stairway is the worker's only viable means of access to the work area.
The motion court denied summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 241(6) claim based on Industrial Code § 23-1.7(d) and the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims against Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSK), granted dismissal of the Labor Law § 241(6) claim based on Industrial Code § 23-1.7(e) and (f) and the Labor Law § 240(1) claim, denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6), and denied ADCO Electrical Corp.'s motion to dismiss JGN Construction Corp.'s indemnification and contribution claims.
The Appellate Division modified by granting plaintiff summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240(1) and, upon searching the record, conditionally granting JGN Construction Corp. contractual indemnification from ADCO Electrical Corp.; it otherwise affirmed.
The court held that permanent staircases are not categorically excluded from Labor Law § 240(1) coverage. Here, the staircase plaintiff used was his sole viable means of access because the only other staircase was used by hospital patients and plaintiff had been instructed not to use it. The stairs were also defective because treads were worn out or missing. The indemnification clause was triggered because plaintiff's claims arose out of ADCO Electrical Corp.'s work, though indemnification was conditional because negligence claims against JGN Construction Corp. remained.
Background
Michael Riley was working on a construction project at the David H. Koch Center. He fell on a permanent staircase that had worn or missing treads. Although defendants argued another staircase existed, that route required use of a stairway reserved for hospital patients during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, and Riley had been instructed not to use it. Riley sued under Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6), 200, and common-law negligence. JGN Construction Corp. also pursued third-party claims against ADCO Electrical Corp. for contractual and common-law indemnification and contribution.
Lower Court Decision
Supreme Court, New York County denied MSK's and JGN's motions for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 241(6) claim based on Industrial Code § 23-1.7(d) and the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims against MSK. It granted dismissal of the Labor Law § 241(6) claim based on Industrial Code § 23-1.7(e) and (f) and dismissed the Labor Law § 240(1) claim. It also denied Riley's motion for summary judgment on liability under Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6), and denied ADCO Electrical Corp.'s motion for summary judgment dismissing JGN Construction Corp.'s indemnification and contribution claims.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division held that Riley was entitled to summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240(1) because the defective staircase was his sole viable means of access to the work area, making the accident a covered gravity-related hazard. The court rejected the view that Labor Law § 240(1) never applies to permanent staircases used as passageways and explained that recent First Department precedent recognizes coverage when such stairs are the only access route. The court also searched the record and conditionally granted JGN Construction Corp. contractual indemnification against ADCO Electrical Corp., since the claims arose out of ADCO Electrical Corp.'s work, but the relief remained conditional pending resolution of whether JGN Construction Corp. was negligent.
Legal Significance
This decision reinforces that a permanent staircase can qualify as a safety device under Labor Law § 240(1) when it is the worker's only practical means of access to the work area. The court emphasized that 'sole means of access' is not interpreted rigidly; an alleged alternative route is not viable if the worker was instructed not to use it or it was realistically unavailable. The ruling also confirms that contractual indemnification provisions in construction subcontracts may be triggered when claims arise out of the subcontractor's work, but the indemnity award must be conditional if negligence claims against the indemnitee remain unresolved.
A worker who falls on a defective permanent staircase may obtain Labor Law § 240(1) relief when that staircase is the only realistic way to reach or leave the work area, and a subcontractor may owe conditional contractual indemnity when the accident arises from its work.