Chavez v 127 Eckford Bay, LLC
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Construction-site personal injury arising from demolition work, involving claims under Labor Law § 240(1) [imposes absolute liability on owners and contractors whose failure to provide adequate protection from reasonably preventable, gravity-related accidents proximately causes injury], Labor Law § 241(6) [imposes a nondelegable duty on owners and contractors to provide reasonable and adequate protection and safety to construction workers], Labor Law § 200 [codifies the common-law duty to provide workers with a safe place to work], and common-law negligence.
The Supreme Court denied the plaintiff summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240(1) and Labor Law § 241(6) as predicated on 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(d) [Industrial Code provision addressing slipping hazards] and 12 NYCRR 23-3.3(e) [during hand demolition, debris and materials must be removed by chutes, buckets or hoists, or through floor openings], and granted the defendants summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law §§ 200 and 240(1) claims, the common-law negligence claim, and the Labor Law § 241(6) claims predicated on those Industrial Code provisions.
The Appellate Division modified the order by reinstating the Labor Law § 200 claim, the common-law negligence claim, and the Labor Law § 241(6) claim insofar as it was predicated on 12 NYCRR 23-3.3(e), but otherwise affirmed.
The permanent staircase was a normal appurtenance of the building and not a safety device covered by Labor Law § 240(1). The debris on which the plaintiff slipped was integral to the ongoing demolition, defeating the 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(d) theory. But defendants failed to show entitlement to dismissal under 12 NYCRR 23-3.3(e) because there were factual issues as to whether the broken trash can used to move debris was the equivalent of a bucket and whether it was defective. Defendants also failed to eliminate triable issues on supervision, notice, and whether the condition was inherent in the work for Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence.
Background
The plaintiff, a demolition laborer employed by CPJR Improvement Corp. (CPJR), was injured on November 30, 2018, during a renovation project at 127 Eckford Street in Brooklyn. The building was owned by 127 Eckford Bay, LLC, and DPC New York, Inc. served as general contractor. The plaintiff testified that workers used water to control dust, leaving the permanent staircase between the first and second floors wet, and that demolition dust turned the wet surface muddy. While carrying a broken, lidless, wheelless 40-gallon trash can filled with demolition debris down the stairs by walking backward and holding the railing with one hand, he allegedly slipped on a piece of demolition debris and fell.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240(1) and under Labor Law § 241(6) insofar as based on 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(d) and 12 NYCRR 23-3.3(e). It granted the cross-motion of 127 Eckford Bay, LLC and DPC New York, Inc. for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law §§ 200 and 240(1) claims, the common-law negligence claim, and the Labor Law § 241(6) claims predicated on 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(d) and 12 NYCRR 23-3.3(e).
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division held that dismissal of the Labor Law § 240(1) claim and the Labor Law § 241(6) claim based on 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(d) was proper, and that the plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment on those claims. However, it ruled that the defendants were not entitled to summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 241(6) claim based on 12 NYCRR 23-3.3(e), because factual issues remained concerning whether the trash can qualified as a bucket under the regulation and whether it was defective. It also held that defendants failed to negate triable issues relevant to both dangerous-condition and means-and-methods theories under Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence. The order was therefore modified to deny dismissal of those claims and otherwise affirmed.
Legal Significance
The decision reinforces that a permanent staircase is not, by itself, a safety device within Labor Law § 240(1), even where a worker is moving heavy debris on stairs. It also confirms that demolition debris integral to ongoing work may defeat a Labor Law § 241(6) claim based on 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(d). At the same time, it shows that a Labor Law § 241(6) claim under 12 NYCRR 23-3.3(e) can survive summary judgment where the method of hand-removal of debris is disputed, including whether the container used qualifies as a permitted bucket and whether it was defective. Finally, it underscores that defendants moving for summary judgment on Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence must address both premises-condition and means-and-methods theories when both are implicated.
Owners and contractors may defeat Labor Law § 240(1) claims involving ordinary stairways and may rely on the integral-to-the-work doctrine against certain slipping-hazard claims, but they cannot obtain summary judgment where factual disputes remain about demolition debris removal methods or about supervision, notice, and the nature of the hazardous condition under Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence.