Amber Serrano v Athena Properties LLC et al.
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Construction and workplace safety; application of New York Labor Law § 240(1) [requires owners and contractors to furnish proper protection against elevation-related risks to workers].
The Supreme Court, Bronx County denied plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on Labor Law § 240(1) and denied defendants' cross-motion to dismiss the Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6), 200, and common-law negligence claims.
The Appellate Division modified by granting plaintiff partial summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240(1) claim; otherwise affirmed.
Unrebutted testimony and video showed the ladder shifted as plaintiff began to descend and no other safety devices were provided, establishing a § 240(1) violation. Defendants failed to show plaintiff was the sole proximate cause; their expert's view was contradicted by the video, and any ladder mispositioning at most showed comparative negligence, which is not a defense under § 240(1).
Background
Plaintiff, while installing ductwork at defendants' premises, fell when the ladder she was using shifted as she began her descent after completing installation tasks. The ladder had been set up by her foreman, and no additional safety devices were made available. Video footage captured the incident and showed plaintiff finishing the screw installation, storing the drill, placing her hand on the ladder's top platform, and then the ladder moving as she descended.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court, Bronx County denied plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on Labor Law § 240(1) and denied defendants' cross-motion to dismiss the claims under Labor Law § 240(1), § 241(6) [imposes a nondelegable duty on owners and contractors to comply with specific Industrial Code regulations], § 200 [codifies the common-law duty of owners and contractors to provide a safe workplace], and common-law negligence.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division modified the order to grant plaintiff partial summary judgment on Labor Law § 240(1), finding the shifting ladder and absence of other safety devices established liability as a matter of law. It rejected defendants' sole proximate cause defense based on video evidence and held that any mispositioning of the ladder would only constitute comparative negligence. With § 240(1) liability established, defendants' challenges to the § 241(6), § 200, and common-law negligence claims were deemed academic.
Legal Significance
Reaffirms that a worker's fall due to a shifting ladder without adequate safety devices establishes liability under Labor Law § 240(1) without proof of a specific ladder defect, and that comparative negligence is not a defense. Sole proximate cause defenses must be supported by evidence consistent with the record; contradictory video evidence will defeat such defenses. Once § 240(1) liability is granted on summary judgment, related statutory and negligence claims may become academic.
Video-corroborated proof that a ladder shifted and no additional safety devices were provided compels summary judgment for the worker under Labor Law § 240(1); defendants cannot rely on comparative negligence or speculative expert opinions to avoid liability.