Nunez v Trustees of Columbia University
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Construction-site personal injury involving Labor Law § 240(1) [imposes upon owners, contractors, and their agents a nondelegable duty to provide workers with protection from elevation-related hazards] and whether a worker was entitled to summary judgment after a ladder moved and he fell while plastering a ceiling.
The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim.
The Appellate Division reversed the order denying summary judgment and granted the plaintiff summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240(1).
The plaintiff made a prima facie showing that the ladder moved for no apparent reason and caused his fall, which established a statutory violation, and the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition.
Background
The plaintiff alleged that he was injured while working in an apartment building owned by the defendant. He was applying a finishing coat of plaster to the ceiling when the ladder he was using moved and he fell. In January 2020, he sued to recover damages for personal injuries, alleging among other things a violation of Labor Law § 240(1). He later moved for summary judgment on liability on that claim.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court, Kings County (Anne J. Swern, J.), in an order dated September 2, 2025, denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division held that where a ladder slides, shifts, tips over, or otherwise collapses for no apparent reason, the plaintiff establishes a violation of Labor Law § 240(1). Because the plaintiff's evidence showed that the ladder moved for no apparent reason and caused his fall, he established entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The defendant did not raise a triable issue of fact, so the order was reversed and summary judgment on liability was granted to the plaintiff.
Legal Significance
This decision reinforces that in New York elevation-related workplace accident cases, unexplained movement of a ladder during covered work supports summary judgment for the injured worker under Labor Law § 240(1). It also underscores that an owner facing such a motion must produce evidence creating a genuine factual dispute; mere opposition without a triable issue is insufficient.
If a worker falls because a ladder moves for no apparent reason while performing covered work at height, the worker may obtain summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240(1) unless the owner can point to evidence creating a real factual dispute.