Guacho v DLV Empire, LLC
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Construction site safety—falling object injury and storage of building materials; potential general contractor liability under New York Labor Law § 240(1) [imposes a nondelegable duty upon owners, contractors, or their agents to provide proper protection to a worker performing certain types of construction work] and Labor Law § 241(6) [imposes a nondelegable duty of reasonable care upon owners and contractors to provide reasonable and adequate protection and safety to persons employed in or lawfully frequenting construction areas], including 12 NYCRR 23-2.1(a)(1) [requires that building materials be stored in a safe and orderly manner and that material piles be stable and not obstruct thoroughfares].
The Supreme Court, Kings County, granted Kader summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it and denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240(1) and on the Labor Law § 241(6) claim predicated on 12 NYCRR 23-2.1(a)(1).
The Appellate Division modified by reinstating the Labor Law § 241(6) claim predicated on 12 NYCRR 23-2.1(a)(1) against Kader; it otherwise affirmed, including dismissal of the Labor Law § 240(1) claim.
Kader did not establish as a matter of law that 12 NYCRR 23-2.1(a)(1) was inapplicable or not violated because triable issues remained about whether the boxed elevator door (a building material) was stored in a safe and orderly manner. By contrast, Labor Law § 240(1) did not apply because the box was not being hoisted or secured, did not require securing for the task, and no enumerated safety device was implicated.
Background
DLV Empire, LLC hired Kader Elite Construction, Inc. to build a new home. Aaron S. Construction Corp. was retained to install elevators. Plaintiff, an Aaron employee, was injured when a four-foot by eight-foot box containing an elevator door—allegedly left standing on a small amount of garbage—fell and pinned his leg. He sued Kader for common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6).
Lower Court Decision
After discovery, the Supreme Court (Kings County) granted Kader’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it and denied plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on Labor Law § 240(1) and the portion of Labor Law § 241(6) predicated on 12 NYCRR 23-2.1(a)(1). Plaintiff did not oppose dismissal of common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200, and those claims were dismissed.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division held: (1) Plaintiff failed to establish as a matter of law that Kader was a general contractor; conversely, Kader failed to prove it was not—creating triable issues on contractor status, so neither side obtained summary judgment on that basis. (2) Kader established entitlement to dismissal of Labor Law § 240(1) because the box was not being hoisted or secured, did not require securing for the task, and no safety device failure caused the fall. (3) Kader failed to establish entitlement to dismissal of Labor Law § 241(6) predicated on 12 NYCRR 23-2.1(a)(1) because the regulation’s safe-storage requirement for building materials could apply even in an open area, and triable issues remained whether the materials were stored safely. The order was modified to deny Kader summary judgment on that § 241(6) theory and otherwise affirmed.
Legal Significance
The decision clarifies that: (a) contractor liability under Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) turns on whether the defendant acted as a general contractor with authority to supervise/coordinate the work and enforce safety; (b) Labor Law § 240(1) in falling-object cases applies only when an object is being hoisted/secured or requires securing for the undertaking and a failure of an enumerated safety device causes the injury; and (c) 12 NYCRR 23-2.1(a)(1) can support a Labor Law § 241(6) claim where building materials are unsafely stored—even in open areas—creating triable issues for a jury.
A boxed elevator door tipping from makeshift support implicates Labor Law § 241(6) via 12 NYCRR 23-2.1(a)(1) (unsafe storage of building materials), but not Labor Law § 240(1), which requires a hoisting/securing risk and a safety device failure. Contractor status as a general contractor remains a fact question precluding summary judgment.