Blachowicz v City of New York
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Construction/worksite safety at elevation (roof hatch/ladder) under New York's Scaffold Law.
Granted plaintiff summary judgment on Labor Law § 240(1) [imposes upon owners, contractors, and their agents a nondelegable duty to provide workers proper protection from elevation-related hazards] and struck numerous affirmative defenses; later, on reargument, also struck the fifth affirmative defense.
The grant of summary judgment on § 240(1) liability and the striking of the first, sixth, seventh, eighth, tenth, eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth, seventeenth, eighteenth, nineteenth, twentieth, and twenty-first affirmative defenses; the reargument order striking the fifth affirmative defense.
Defendants raised a triable issue of fact under the recalcitrant worker doctrine by showing safety devices were available, plaintiff may have known of them, and did not use them; plaintiff’s motion to strike defenses relied on conclusory assertions and did not show the defenses were meritless as a matter of law.
Background
Plaintiff, a sheet metal worker at LaGuardia Airport Terminal C, accessed a roof via a ladder through a hatch secured by latches but lacking a handrail. While descending, he held the hatch door for support; the hatch closed, he lost balance, and fell. He sued the City of New York, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, and Delta Air Lines, Inc., alleging common-law negligence and Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6).
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court, Queens County, granted plaintiff summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240(1) and struck the defendants’ first, sixth, seventh, eighth, tenth, eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth, seventeenth, eighteenth, nineteenth, twentieth, and twenty-first affirmative defenses; it denied striking the fifth defense. On reargument, it vacated that denial and struck the fifth defense as well.
Appellate Division Reversal
Reversed both orders. The court denied plaintiff’s summary judgment on Labor Law § 240(1), finding defendants raised a triable issue of fact regarding available safety devices and plaintiff’s nonuse (recalcitrant worker). It reinstated all struck affirmative defenses, holding plaintiff’s conclusory showing failed to establish they were meritless as a matter of law, and on reargument adhered to the original denial as to the fifth defense. One bill of costs awarded to defendants.
Legal Significance
Reaffirms that summary judgment under Labor Law § 240(1) is improper where there is a factual dispute about the availability and nonuse of safety devices under the recalcitrant worker doctrine, and that affirmative defenses should not be stricken absent a clear, nonconclusory showing they are without merit.
Plaintiffs seeking § 240(1) summary judgment must negate recalcitrant worker issues and specifically demonstrate why each affirmative defense lacks merit; conclusory assertions will not suffice.