Restrepo v Bushwick Realty Holdings, LLC
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Construction/worksite fall protection under New York Labor Law § 240(1) [imposes a nondelegable duty and absolute liability upon owners and general contractors and their agents to provide safety devices necessary to protect workers from risks inherent in elevated work sites].
Granted defendants summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 240(1) claim and denied plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment on liability.
The dismissal of the Labor Law § 240(1) claim; the Appellate Division denied defendants' motion on that branch, reinstating the claim.
Neither side made a prima facie showing: defendants failed to establish that adequate safety devices were provided or that no statutory violation occurred, and plaintiff failed to establish that the lack of an adequate safety device was a proximate cause of the ladder fall. Questions of fact remain regarding whether the ladder was properly secured and whether any violation caused the accident.
Background
Plaintiff, an employee of Capital Concrete NY, Inc., fell from an A-frame ladder while performing work at premises owned/controlled by defendants. He sued alleging, among other things, a violation of Labor Law § 240(1) arising from inadequate fall protection. After discovery, defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint; plaintiff cross-moved for summary judgment on § 240(1) liability.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court, Kings County, granted defendants summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action and denied plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment on liability under that statute.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division modified by denying the branch of defendants' motion seeking dismissal of the Labor Law § 240(1) claim, thereby reinstating it, and otherwise affirmed, including the denial of plaintiff's cross-motion. Costs were awarded to plaintiff.
Legal Significance
Reaffirms that in ladder-fall cases under Labor Law § 240(1), whether a device provided proper protection is generally a question of fact unless the device fails. Defendants bear the burden on summary judgment to show no statutory violation or that plaintiff was the sole proximate cause; plaintiffs must show a statutory violation and proximate cause. Absent clear proof—such as evidence of adequate safety devices or, conversely, that the failure to provide them caused the fall—summary judgment for either side is inappropriate.
Contested ladder-fall claims under Labor Law § 240(1) will proceed to trial where the record does not conclusively show the adequacy of safety devices or proximate cause; dismissal for owners/contractors or summary judgment for plaintiffs will be denied when factual disputes remain.