Jover v 1540 Second Realty, LLC
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Construction-site injury liability arising from demolition debris falling through floor openings and whether the worker was entitled to summary judgment under Labor Law § 240(1) [New York's Scaffold Law requiring owners and contractors to provide proper protection from elevation-related hazards] and Labor Law § 241(6) [requires compliance with specific safety rules for construction, excavation, and demolition work].
The lower court denied plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment because there was conflicting testimony about how the accident happened.
The Appellate Division reversed the denial of summary judgment and granted plaintiff partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240(1).
The court held that even under either version of the accident, defendant failed to provide adequate safety devices and that violation proximately caused plaintiff's injury. The conflicting accounts did not matter because both established Labor Law § 240(1) liability.
Background
Plaintiff was injured during demolition work at a construction site. According to plaintiff, his employer had created holes in each floor so debris could be dumped from upper floors to the first floor. He testified that while clearing debris clogging a hole on the second floor at his foreman's direction, a coworker dumped debris that fell on him. The foreman gave a different account, testifying that debris moved through a chute system passing through floor openings to the first floor, where plaintiff had been replacing containers, and that dumping had already stopped before the accident. Under both versions, plaintiff's injury resulted from falling demolition debris in an elevation-related work setting.
Lower Court Decision
Supreme Court, Bronx County, denied plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) claims, finding that conflicting testimony about the mechanics of the accident created an issue of fact.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division unanimously reversed the order to the extent appealed from and granted plaintiff's motion as to liability on the Labor Law § 240(1) claim. It ruled that conflicting accounts do not defeat summary judgment where either account shows that a Labor Law § 240(1) violation proximately caused the injury. The court further stated that falling-object liability is not limited to cases where the object was being hoisted or secured. Because plaintiff prevailed under Labor Law § 240(1), the court found consideration of Labor Law § 241(6) academic.
Legal Significance
This decision reinforces that a plaintiff may obtain summary judgment under Labor Law § 240(1) even when witnesses describe the accident differently, so long as every version establishes an elevation-related hazard and inadequate protective devices. It also confirms that falling-object liability under Labor Law § 240(1) extends beyond objects actively being hoisted or secured.
If all versions of a construction accident show that falling debris struck a worker because proper safety protection was not provided, conflicting testimony about the exact sequence of events will not prevent summary judgment under Labor Law § 240(1).