Nunez v. Trustees of Columbia Univ.

Opinion

Nunez v Trustees of Columbia Univ.

2026 NY Slip Op 05319

September 16, 2026

Appellate Division, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Guillermo Nunez, appellant,

v

Trustees of Columbia University, respondent (and a third-party action).

Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

Decided on September 16, 2026

2025-11616, (Index No. 500469/20)

Betsy Barros, J.P.

Lara J. Genovesi

Helen Voutsinas

Carl J. Landicino, JJ.

Gorayeb & Associates, P.C., New York, NY (Jonathan D. Moran of counsel), for appellant.

Barry McTiernan & Moore LLC, New York, NY (Courtney Chadwell of counsel), for respondent.

[*1]

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Anne J. Swern, J.), dated September 2, 2025. The order denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240(1).

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240(1) is granted.

The plaintiff allegedly was injured while working in an apartment building owned by the defendant. The plaintiff alleged that he was applying a finishing coat of plaster to the ceiling when a ladder he was using moved and he fell. In January 2020, the plaintiff commenced this action against the defendant to recover damages for personal injuries, alleging, inter alia, a violation of Labor Law § 240(1). The plaintiff subsequently moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240(1). In an order dated September 2, 2025, the Supreme Court denied the plaintiff's motion. The plaintiff appeals.

"Labor Law § 240(1) imposes upon owners, contractors, and their agents a nondelegable duty to provide workers with protection from elevation-related hazards" (Ramirez v Pace Univ., 230 AD3d 811, 811-812; see Mushkudiani v Racanelli Constr. Group, Inc., 219 AD3d 613, 614). "To establish liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240(1), a plaintiff must demonstrate a violation of the statute and that such violation was a proximate cause of his or her injuries" (Ramirez v Pace Univ., 230 AD3d at 812 [internal quotation marks omitted]).

"To establish a violation under Labor Law § 240(1), '[t]here must be evidence that the ladder was defective or inadequately secured and that the defect, or the failure to secure the ladder, was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff's injuries'" (Cioffi v Target Corp., 188 AD3d 788, 791, quoting Hugo v Sarantakos, 108 AD3d 744, 745; see Cahill v Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth., 4 NY3d 35, 39). "The collapse of a scaffold or ladder for no apparent reason while a plaintiff is engaged in an activity enumerated under the statute creates a presumption that the ladder or [*2]scaffold did not afford proper protection" (Acatila v Really Neat Realty, Inc., 239 AD3d 926, 927 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Valentin v Stathakos, 228 AD3d 985, 989). "Where, for instance, the plaintiff falls from a ladder because the plaintiff lost his or her balance, and there is no evidence that the ladder was defective or inadequate, liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240(1) does not attach" (Cioffi v Target Corp., 188 AD3d at 791). "By contrast, where a ladder slides, shifts, tips over, or otherwise collapses for no apparent reason, the plaintiff has established a violation" (id.; see Salinas v 64 Jefferson Apts., LLC, 170 AD3d 1216, 1222).

Here, the plaintiff established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability on the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240(1) by submitting evidence that the ladder on which he was standing moved for no apparent reason, causing him to fall (see Acatila v Really Neat Realty, Inc., 239 AD3d at 927; Cioffi v Target Corp., 188 AD3d at 791; Salinas v 64 Jefferson Apts., LLC, 170 AD3d at 1222). In opposition, the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Vicuna v Vista Woods, LLC, 168 AD3d 1124, 1125; Cabrera v Arrow Steel Window Corp., 163 AD3d 758, 759-760).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240(1).

The defendant's remaining contentions are either without merit or not properly before this Court.

BARROS, J.P., GENOVESI, VOUTSINAS and LANDICINO, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court