Vergara v. Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Sts.
Opinion
Vergara v Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Sts.
2026 NY Slip Op 30850(U)
March 9, 2026
Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 150620/2019 Judge: David B. Cohen
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.
This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication.
file:///LRB-ALB-FS1/Vol1/ecourts/Process/covers/NYSUP.1506202019.NEW_YORK.001.LBLX036_TO.html[03/17/2026 3:45:46 PM]
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/10/2026 04:23 PM INDEX NO. 150620/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 68 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/09/2026
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY
PRESENT: HON. DAVID B. COHEN PART 58 Justice
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X INDEX NO. 150620/2019 JORGE VERGARA, RUTH VERGARA 01/07/2025,
Plaintiffs, MOTION DATE 01/07/2025
-v- MOTION SEQ. NO. 001 002
CORPORATION OF THE PRESIDING BISHOP OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS, DECISION + ORDER ON
SOUTHEAST COMMERCIAL, LLC, MOTION
Defendants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 54, 55, 56, 60, 61, 63 were read on this motion to/for JUDGMENT - SUMMARY .
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 57, 58, 59, 62 were read on this motion to/for JUDGMENT - SUMMARY .
In this Labor Law action, plaintiffs move, pursuant to CPLR 3212, for partial summary judgment as to liability under Labor Law § 240(1) against defendants Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (the Church) and Southeast Commercial LLC (Southeast) (together, defendants) (Motion Seq. 002). Defendants oppose and, separately, move for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against them in their entirety (Motion Seq. 001). Plaintiffs oppose that motion. I. BACKGROUND FACTS This action arises out of an incident in which plaintiff allegedly fell from a ladder while removing accumulated snow from a canopy above the entrance of a residential apartment building. On March 22, 2018, the Church owned the premises, a residential apartment building located at 2 Lincoln Square, New York, New York, and Southeast was also an owner and
150620/2019 VERGARA, JORGE vs. CORPORATION OF THE PRESIDING Page 1 of 7 Motion No. 001 002
1 of 7
[* 1]
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/10/2026 04:23 PM INDEX NO. 150620/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 68 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/09/2026
leaseholder of the premises (NYSCEF 48, 59). Plaintiff Jorge Vergara was employed by Rose Associates (a non-party to this action), which managed the premises on behalf of defendants (NYSCEF 59). Plaintiff testified that his duties included general maintenance and cleaning of the building, including floors, walls, glass, and the exterior perimeter (NYSCEF 47).
On the morning of March 22, 2018, while plaintiff was cleaning the lobby interior, the doorman informed him that snow had accumulated on the canopy above the front entrance of the premises and was melting and leaking onto people entering the building, and asked plaintiff to remove the snow (id.). Plaintiff’s supervisor, the building’s super, confirmed that he should do so (id.).
Plaintiff selected the only ladder available in a supply closet, an A-frame that was approximately six-feet tall, along with a rubber brush attached to a pole approximately four-feet long (id.). He positioned the ladder outside, beneath the canopy, and ascended to the second rung from the top in order to remove the snow (id.). Plaintiff testified that the doorman initially held the ladder to steady it, but walked away mid-task without notifying plaintiff, at which point the ladder began to shake and tip to the side, causing plaintiff to fall to the ground and land on top of the ladder (id.).
Plaintiff testified that snow removal was typically performed by other workers at the building, but that he had previously removed snow from the canopy “sometimes,” using either a brush or a ladder (id.). At the time of the incident, there was no construction, demolition, renovation, or similar work taking place at the building, and no scaffolding was erected (NYSCEF 59).
In support of their motion, defendants submit the affirmation of Michael Dehner, a representative of Southeast. Dehner affirms that the Church owned the premises, and Southeast
150620/2019 VERGARA, JORGE vs. CORPORATION OF THE PRESIDING Page 2 of 7 Motion No. 001 002
2 of 7
[* 2]
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/10/2026 04:23 PM INDEX NO. 150620/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 68 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/09/2026
was the leaseholder at the time of the incident, and that neither defendant supervised, directed, or controlled plaintiff’s work. He further states that defendants had no personal knowledge of the circumstances surrounding plaintiff’s accident and were not aware of any witnesses thereto (NYSCEF 59). II. DISCUSSION A Motion Seq. 002 – Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment Party Contentions
Plaintiffs move for summary judgment on liability, arguing that plaintiff was engaged in “cleaning” within the meaning of the statute when directed to remove accumulated snow from the building’s entrance canopy. Plaintiffs assert that while standing on a ladder, it shook and tilted sideways, causing plaintiff to fall. They maintain that the ladder failed to provide proper protection and that its movement establishes a statutory violation. Plaintiffs further contend that the task was not routine maintenance but a discrete assignment that exposed plaintiff to an elevation-related hazard, that the ladder was the only one available, and that no alternative safety devices were provided.
Defendants oppose the motion and argue that Labor Law § 240(1) does not apply because plaintiff was performing routine snow removal, which constitutes maintenance rather than “cleaning” under the statute. They emphasize that no construction, renovation, repair, or alteration work was underway at the premises at the time of the incident. Defendants contend that removing snow from the canopy was a recurring task performed as needed during winter weather and required no specialized equipment or expertise. They argue that the work involved ordinary tools, that the ladder was not defective, that it did not collapse or break, and that plaintiff’s accident occurred while he was using the equipment in an ordinary manner. Based on
150620/2019 VERGARA, JORGE vs. CORPORATION OF THE PRESIDING Page 3 of 7 Motion No. 001 002
3 of 7
[* 3]
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/10/2026 04:23 PM INDEX NO. 150620/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 68 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/09/2026
these arguments, defendants contend that the statute is inapplicable as a matter of law and that plaintiffs’ motion must be denied.
Analysis
Pursuant to Labor Law § 240(1), owners and contractors engaged in the “erection, demolition, repair, altering, painting, cleaning or pointing of a building or structure” must furnish safety devices so constructed and placed as to provide proper protection to a person so employed.
Although “cleaning” is an enumerated activity under the statute, not every cleaning-
related task falls within its ambit. In Soto v J. Crew Inc., the Court of Appeals held that an activity is not properly characterized as “cleaning” under the statute if it:
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
2026 NY Slip Op 30850(U) (Vergara v. Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Sts.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.