Roger J. Contreras v. The City of New York et al.
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Construction site safety and falling-object liability on a sidewalk bridge/scaffolding during exterior school restoration.
The motion court denied plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on Labor Law § 240(1) [New York Scaffold Law imposing absolute liability on owners/contractors for elevation-related risks where proper safety devices are not provided or fail], granted plaintiff leave to amend to allege Industrial Code §§ 23-1.15(c) [safety railing specifications, including toeboards] and 23-5.1(j)(1) [general scaffold safety requirements, including guardrails/toeboards], granted defendants summary judgment dismissing Labor Law § 200 [codifies the common-law duty to provide a safe workplace] and common-law negligence, and denied defendants' motion on Labor Law § 241(6) [imposes a nondelegable duty to comply with specific Industrial Code regulations] and § 240(1).
The denial of plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on Labor Law § 240(1) was modified to grant plaintiff summary judgment on liability.
Plaintiff was struck by a falling chisel while on an on-site coffee break, which is covered by § 240(1); the chisel required securing and the scaffolding/sidewalk bridge protections were inadequate due to gaps and lack of netting/toeboards. Plaintiff did not need to establish the exact origin or mechanism of the fall, and inconsistencies about accident location or where the chisel hit were immaterial.
Background
Plaintiff, working on an exterior restoration of a five-story school, was taking a designated coffee break on or beneath a sidewalk bridge with coworkers when a chisel fell from above and struck him. He alleged the overhead scaffolding had plank gaps and lacked sufficient netting and toeboards on the side closest to the building. Plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment on Labor Law § 240(1) and to amend his bill of particulars to add Industrial Code violations; defendants cross-moved on Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6), and 200 and common-law negligence.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court, New York County, denied plaintiff partial summary judgment on § 240(1); granted leave to amend to allege Industrial Code §§ 23-1.15(c) and 23-5.1(j)(1); granted defendants summary judgment dismissing § 200 and common-law negligence; and denied defendants' motion as to §§ 240(1) and 241(6).
Appellate Division Reversal
Modified to grant plaintiff partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240(1), and otherwise affirmed. Given plaintiff's entitlement to § 240(1) liability, issues concerning § 200, common-law negligence, and § 241(6) were deemed academic, though the prior dismissals of § 200 and common-law negligence and the survival of § 241(6) stood as affirmed.
Legal Significance
Reaffirms that on-site break-time injuries caused by falling objects are within the ambit of Labor Law § 240(1); that a plaintiff need not prove the precise manner or origin of a falling object's descent; and that scaffolding/sidewalk bridge defects such as plank gaps and inadequate edge protections can establish the inadequacy of safety devices for summary judgment.
On-site break injuries from falling objects are covered by § 240(1), and plaintiffs can obtain summary judgment without proving exactly how or from where the object fell when elevation-related safety devices are inadequate.