Letersky v. Militello Farms, Inc. and Russo Development, Inc. (Appeal No. 2)
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Construction/worksite injury litigation involving a claim under New York Labor Law § 240 (1) [the Scaffold Law imposing elevation-related safety duties on owners and contractors].
Supreme Court, Chautauqua County, granted Russo Development, Inc.'s motion for leave to reargue and, upon reargument, granted summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action against Russo Development, Inc.
The Appellate Division overturned the portion of the order that dismissed the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against Russo Development, Inc., denied that part of Russo's summary judgment motion, and reinstated the claim.
The court stated that it was applying the same memorandum and reasoning as in the companion decision in Letersky v. Militello Farms, Inc. (appeal No. 1), and therefore concluded that dismissal of the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against Russo Development, Inc. was improper.
Background
Plaintiff Kevin Letersky brought an action arising from a worksite accident against Militello Farms, Inc. and Russo Development, Inc. Among the claims was a cause of action under Labor Law § 240 (1). In this appeal, the issue was whether Russo Development, Inc. was entitled to summary judgment dismissing that statutory claim after Supreme Court granted reargument.
Lower Court Decision
The lower court granted Russo Development, Inc.'s motion for leave to reargue and, on reargument, granted summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action against it.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division unanimously modified the order by denying the part of Russo Development, Inc.'s motion seeking summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and reinstating that cause of action against Russo Development, Inc. As modified, the order was affirmed without costs.
Legal Significance
This decision confirms that, even after reargument is granted, a defendant is not entitled to summary judgment dismissing a Labor Law § 240 (1) claim unless the record supports that result as a matter of law. It also shows that the Appellate Division may resolve a related appeal by expressly relying on the reasoning in a companion decision.
Russo Development, Inc. remains a defendant on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim because the Appellate Division reinstated that cause of action and rejected the lower court's summary dismissal of it.