Caceres v. Standard Realty Associates, Inc.

131 A.D.3d 433, 15 N.Y.S.3d 338

• Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
• Decided: August 25, 2015
• Docket: 14534 110900/10 590816/10
• Status: Published

Opinions

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen A. Rakower, J.), entered May 12, 2014, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted.

Plaintiffs Luis Caceres and Maria Caceres, suing derivatively, commenced this action for personal injuries Luis Caceras sustained on August 3, 2009, when, standing on an A-frame ladder framing a wall in a bedroom to make a closet, he fell. The framing work required plaintiff to install a metal stud every 16 inches on center into the header of the frame of a 9-to-10-foot ceiling. After he had affixed the first two metal studs into the header, using an electric drill to screw them in, his helper was called away by the supervisor. No one else came over to assist him after the helper left, and he did not ask anybody else to come and assist him, because “[t]here was no one else at that moment.” Plaintiff moved the ladder over to the third stud and climbed up; he stood on the ladder, facing the stud, with both feet on the fourth step of the ladder. Plaintiff was holding his electric drill in his right hand and the metal stud he was affixing in his left hand. As plaintiff tried to reach around the stud with his right hand to install the screw into the header channel, he lost his balance and fell to the floor. The accident happened about five minutes after plaintiff’s helper had been called away.

Supreme Court erred in denying plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment against defendants on the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). The dissent mischaracterizes the majority’s position. We do not simply hold that “a plaintiff-worker’s testimony that he fell from a non-defective ladder while performing work . . . alone establish [es] liability under Labor Law § 240 (1).” Rather, it is undisputed that no equipment was provided to plaintiff to guard against the risk of falling from the ladder while operating the drill, and that plaintiff’s coworker was not stabilizing the ladder at the time of the fall. Under the circumstances, we find that plaintiff’s testimony that he fell from the ladder while performing drilling work established prima facie entitlement to summary judgment on the issue of liability on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim (see Ross v 1510 Assoc. LLC, 106 AD3d 471 [1st Dept 2013]; McCarthy v Turner Constr., Inc., 52 AD3d 333 [1st Dept 2008]). In response, defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact concerning the manner in which the accident occurred or whether the A-frame ladder provided adequate protection. Their arguments that plaintiff caused his own injuries, by allegedly placing himself in a position where he had to lean and reach around the side of the ladder to fix the wall stud, at most establish comparative negligence, which is not a defense to a Labor Law § 240 (1) claim (see Stolt v General Foods Corp., 81 NY2d 918, 920 [1993]).

Concur — Renwick, Manzanet-Daniels and Gische, JJ.