Rolle v JCDecaux Street Furniture New York, LLC
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Workplace injury arising from maintenance of a public bus shelter, involving claims under Labor Law § 240(1) [imposes upon owners, contractors, and their agents a nondelegable duty to provide safety devices necessary to protect workers from risks inherent in elevated work sites], Labor Law § 241(6) [requires reasonable and adequate protection and safety for workers], and Labor Law § 200 [codifies the common-law duty to provide a safe place to work].
The Supreme Court, Kings County denied the plaintiff summary judgment on Labor Law § 240(1) and granted the defendants summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) claims, as well as the Labor Law § 200 claim against the City of New York and the New York City Department of Transportation (DOT).
The Appellate Division reinstated the Labor Law § 241(6) claim against the defendants and the Labor Law § 200 claim against the City and the DOT, but left intact the dismissal of the Labor Law § 240(1) claim and the denial of the plaintiff's motion on that claim.
The court held that Labor Law § 240(1) did not apply because the plaintiff was standing on the sidewalk, used no ladder, and the panel that fell was not being hoisted, secured, or required securing for the power-washing work. But the defendants' cross-motion to dismiss the Labor Law §§ 241(6) and 200 claims was untimely under the Kings County Supreme Court Uniform Civil Term Rules, part C, rule 6 [requires summary judgment motions within 60 days after the filing of a note of issue unless leave of court is obtained upon good cause shown], and those issues were not nearly identical to the plaintiff's motion.
Background
On May 12, 2016, Lamont Rolle, an employee of Dynaserv Industries, Inc., was power-washing a bus shelter when an interior panel allegedly fell and struck his head. Dynaserv had contracted with CEMUSA NY, LLC to clean bus shelters. JCDecaux Street Furniture New York, LLC later purchased CEMUSA and took over its maintenance contracts with the City of New York and the New York City Department of Transportation (DOT). Rolle sued for negligence and for violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6).
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240(1) and granted the defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) claims against them, and the Labor Law § 200 claim against the City and the DOT.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division modified the order by denying the defendants' cross-motion insofar as it sought dismissal of the Labor Law § 241(6) claim and the Labor Law § 200 claim against the City and the DOT. The court otherwise affirmed, holding that the plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment under Labor Law § 240(1) and that the defendants were entitled to dismissal of that claim because the accident did not arise from a covered elevation-related hazard.
Legal Significance
The decision reinforces the narrow scope of Labor Law § 240(1), emphasizing that a falling object does not trigger the statute unless the injury results from the absence or inadequacy of a statutory safety device and the object was being hoisted, secured, or required securing for the work. The decision also underscores strict enforcement of local summary judgment deadlines: an untimely cross-motion cannot be considered on the merits absent good cause or a showing that it raises nearly identical issues to a timely motion.
A worker injured by a falling component during routine cleaning will not obtain Labor Law § 240(1) protection unless the accident involves a true elevation-related risk covered by the statute. At the same time, defendants can lose potentially meritorious dismissal arguments under Labor Law §§ 241(6) and 200 if their summary judgment motion is untimely and does not mirror issues already raised in a timely motion.