Villa v West 38 RES LLC 2024 NY Slip Op 34360(U) December 16, 2024 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 151515/2020 Judge: Sabrina Kraus 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. [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/16/2024 12:45 P~ INDEX NO. 151515/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 65 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/16/2024
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. SABRINA KRAUS PART 57M Justice ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------X INDEX NO. 151515/2020 SEGUNDO FABIAN LLUILEMA VILLA, MOTION DATE 06/11/2024 Plaintiff, MOTION SEQ. NO. 001 - V -
WEST 38 RES LLC, SITE C GC LLC, DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION Defendants. ------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------X
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61, 62,63,64 were read on this motion to/for JUDGMENT-SUMMARY
BACKGROUND
On December 18, 2019, while performing construction work at 555 W38th Street, New
York New York, Plaintiff alleges he was caused to suffer serious and permanent physical injuries
when he fell from an inadequately secured extension ladder that suddenly slid backwards.
Plaintiff now moves for an order pursuant to CPLR 3212 granting summary judgment to
plaintiff as to liability against defendants West 3 8 Res LLC ("Owner") and Site C GC LLC
("GC") on Plaintiffs Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action.
For the reasons set forth below, the motion is granted.
ALLEGED FACTS
On December 18, 2019, Owner owned the premises located at 555 West 38th Street, New
York, New York, and was in the process of erecting a 591-unit apartment building on the
premises. Owner hired GC as the General Contractor for the job.
151515/2020 LLUILEMA VILLA, SEGUNDO FABIAN vs. WEST 38 RES LLC Page 1 of 7 Motion No. 001
1 of 7 [* 1] [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/16/2024 12:45 P~ INDEX NO. 151515/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 65 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/16/2024
Plaintiff was employed by ECDNY, INC. ("ECD") as a carpenter and performing
excavation related work at the premises. At that point in the project, ECD was in the process of
constructing the walls of the foundation. There were multiple tiers within the excavation pit.
Beginning with street level, there was then a basement level, followed by trenches that ran below
the basement level.
In order to reach the plywood, Plaintiff had to ascend an aluminum extension ladder that
was approximately eight to ten-feet tall. The ladder was neither tied off nor secured against
movement. As Plaintiff was ascending the ladder, and nearly at the top, it suddenly slipped and
slid backwards. The slipping and sliding of the ladder caused the Plaintiff to fall to the floor and
sustain serious injuries.
Most of these alleges facts are not denied by defendants. However, defendants do deny
that there is evidence that the ladder was not tied off, claiming in hid deposition testimony
Plaintiff did not observe whether this was true. Defendants further allege they did not observe a
ladder in the vicinity of the accident after the accident when Site Safety manager Shawn Clarke
went to investigate.
Defendants also allege that Plaintiff was responsible for the accident because Plaintiff
saw ice on the ground where the ladder was set up prior to ascending the ladder and never
complained to anyone about the condition of the ground where the ladder was set up prior to
ascending the ladder. Plaintiff did not attempt to break up the ice prior to ascending the ladder
and did not check if the ladder was tied off before ascending it. Plaintiff reported to two
treatment providers that he slipped on the ladder.
151515/2020 LLUILEMA VILLA, SEGUNDO FABIAN vs. WEST 38 RES LLC Page 2 of 7 Motion No. 001
2 of 7 [* 2] [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/16/2024 12:45 P~ INDEX NO. 151515/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 65 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/16/2024
DISCUSSION
To prevail on a motion for summary judgment, the moving party must establish its cause
of action or defense sufficiently to warrant the court as a matter of law in directing judgment in
its favor. Winegradv. New York Univ. Med Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851 (1985); Zuckerman v. City of
New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557 (1980). Absent such aprimafacie showing, the motion must be
denied, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers (Alvarez v Prospect Hospital, 68
NY2d 320, 324 [1986]).
However, "[o]nce the movant makes the required showing, the burden shifts to the party
opposing the motion to produce evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to establish the
existence of a material issue of fact that precludes summary judgment and requires a trial"
(Dallas-Stephenson v Waisman, 39 AD3d 303, 306 [1st Dept 2007], citing Alvarez, 68 NY2d at
324). "[A]ll of the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the opponent of the
motion" (People v Grasso, 50 AD3d 535,544 [1st Dept 2008]). "On a motion for summary
judgment, the court's function is issue finding, not issue determination, and any questions of
credibility are best resolved by the trier of fact" (Martin v Citibank, NA., 64 AD3d 477,478 [1st
Dept 2009]; see also Sheehan v Gong, 2 AD3d 166,168 [1st Dept 2003] ["The court's role, in
passing on a motion for summary judgment, is solely to determine if any triable issues exist, not
to determine the merits of any such issues"], citing Sillman v Twentieth Century-Fox Film
Corp., 3 NY2d 395, 404 [1957]).
Labor Law§ 240(1) provides:
All contractors and owners and their agents, except owners of one and two-family dwellings who contract for but do not direct or control the work, in the erection, demolition, repairing, altering, painting, cleaning or pointing of a building or structure shall furnish or erect, or cause to be furnished or erected for the performance of such labor, scaffolding, hoists, stays, ladders, slings, hangers, blocks, pulleys, braces, irons,
151515/2020 LLUILEMA VILLA, SEGUNDO FABIAN vs. WEST 38 RES LLC Page 3 of 7 Motion No. 001
3 of 7 [* 3] [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/16/2024 12:45 P~ INDEX NO. 151515/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 65 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/16/2024
ropes, and other devices which shall be so constructed, placed and operated as to give proper protection to a person so employed.
Not every worker who falls at a construction site, and not every object that falls on a
worker, gives rise to the extraordinary protections of Labor Law§ 240(1). Rather, liability is
contingent upon the existence of a hazard contemplated in section 240(1) and the failure to use,
or the inadequacy of, a safety device of the kind enumerated therein (see, Ross v. Curtis-Palmer
Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 N.Y.2d 494, 501, 601 N.Y.S.2d 49, 618 N.E.2d 82).
The decisive question is whether the worker's injuries were the direct consequence of a
failure to provide adequate protection against a risk arising from a physically significant
elevation differential, Nicometi v Vineyards of Fredonia, LLC, 25 NY3d 90 (2015); Runner v
New York Stock Exchange, Inc., 13 NY3d 599 (2009); Gonzalez v Madison Sixty, LLC, 216
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Villa v West 38 RES LLC 2024 NY Slip Op 34360(U) December 16, 2024 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 151515/2020 Judge: Sabrina Kraus 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. [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/16/2024 12:45 P~ INDEX NO. 151515/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 65 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/16/2024
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. SABRINA KRAUS PART 57M Justice ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------X INDEX NO. 151515/2020 SEGUNDO FABIAN LLUILEMA VILLA, MOTION DATE 06/11/2024 Plaintiff, MOTION SEQ. NO. 001 - V -
WEST 38 RES LLC, SITE C GC LLC, DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION Defendants. ------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------X
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61, 62,63,64 were read on this motion to/for JUDGMENT-SUMMARY
BACKGROUND
On December 18, 2019, while performing construction work at 555 W38th Street, New
York New York, Plaintiff alleges he was caused to suffer serious and permanent physical injuries
when he fell from an inadequately secured extension ladder that suddenly slid backwards.
Plaintiff now moves for an order pursuant to CPLR 3212 granting summary judgment to
plaintiff as to liability against defendants West 3 8 Res LLC ("Owner") and Site C GC LLC
("GC") on Plaintiffs Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action.
For the reasons set forth below, the motion is granted.
ALLEGED FACTS
On December 18, 2019, Owner owned the premises located at 555 West 38th Street, New
York, New York, and was in the process of erecting a 591-unit apartment building on the
premises. Owner hired GC as the General Contractor for the job.
151515/2020 LLUILEMA VILLA, SEGUNDO FABIAN vs. WEST 38 RES LLC Page 1 of 7 Motion No. 001
1 of 7 [* 1] [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/16/2024 12:45 P~ INDEX NO. 151515/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 65 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/16/2024
Plaintiff was employed by ECDNY, INC. ("ECD") as a carpenter and performing
excavation related work at the premises. At that point in the project, ECD was in the process of
constructing the walls of the foundation. There were multiple tiers within the excavation pit.
Beginning with street level, there was then a basement level, followed by trenches that ran below
the basement level.
In order to reach the plywood, Plaintiff had to ascend an aluminum extension ladder that
was approximately eight to ten-feet tall. The ladder was neither tied off nor secured against
movement. As Plaintiff was ascending the ladder, and nearly at the top, it suddenly slipped and
slid backwards. The slipping and sliding of the ladder caused the Plaintiff to fall to the floor and
sustain serious injuries.
Most of these alleges facts are not denied by defendants. However, defendants do deny
that there is evidence that the ladder was not tied off, claiming in hid deposition testimony
Plaintiff did not observe whether this was true. Defendants further allege they did not observe a
ladder in the vicinity of the accident after the accident when Site Safety manager Shawn Clarke
went to investigate.
Defendants also allege that Plaintiff was responsible for the accident because Plaintiff
saw ice on the ground where the ladder was set up prior to ascending the ladder and never
complained to anyone about the condition of the ground where the ladder was set up prior to
ascending the ladder. Plaintiff did not attempt to break up the ice prior to ascending the ladder
and did not check if the ladder was tied off before ascending it. Plaintiff reported to two
treatment providers that he slipped on the ladder.
151515/2020 LLUILEMA VILLA, SEGUNDO FABIAN vs. WEST 38 RES LLC Page 2 of 7 Motion No. 001
2 of 7 [* 2] [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/16/2024 12:45 P~ INDEX NO. 151515/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 65 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/16/2024
DISCUSSION
To prevail on a motion for summary judgment, the moving party must establish its cause
of action or defense sufficiently to warrant the court as a matter of law in directing judgment in
its favor. Winegradv. New York Univ. Med Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851 (1985); Zuckerman v. City of
New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557 (1980). Absent such aprimafacie showing, the motion must be
denied, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers (Alvarez v Prospect Hospital, 68
NY2d 320, 324 [1986]).
However, "[o]nce the movant makes the required showing, the burden shifts to the party
opposing the motion to produce evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to establish the
existence of a material issue of fact that precludes summary judgment and requires a trial"
(Dallas-Stephenson v Waisman, 39 AD3d 303, 306 [1st Dept 2007], citing Alvarez, 68 NY2d at
324). "[A]ll of the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the opponent of the
motion" (People v Grasso, 50 AD3d 535,544 [1st Dept 2008]). "On a motion for summary
judgment, the court's function is issue finding, not issue determination, and any questions of
credibility are best resolved by the trier of fact" (Martin v Citibank, NA., 64 AD3d 477,478 [1st
Dept 2009]; see also Sheehan v Gong, 2 AD3d 166,168 [1st Dept 2003] ["The court's role, in
passing on a motion for summary judgment, is solely to determine if any triable issues exist, not
to determine the merits of any such issues"], citing Sillman v Twentieth Century-Fox Film
Corp., 3 NY2d 395, 404 [1957]).
Labor Law§ 240(1) provides:
All contractors and owners and their agents, except owners of one and two-family dwellings who contract for but do not direct or control the work, in the erection, demolition, repairing, altering, painting, cleaning or pointing of a building or structure shall furnish or erect, or cause to be furnished or erected for the performance of such labor, scaffolding, hoists, stays, ladders, slings, hangers, blocks, pulleys, braces, irons,
151515/2020 LLUILEMA VILLA, SEGUNDO FABIAN vs. WEST 38 RES LLC Page 3 of 7 Motion No. 001
3 of 7 [* 3] [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/16/2024 12:45 P~ INDEX NO. 151515/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 65 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/16/2024
ropes, and other devices which shall be so constructed, placed and operated as to give proper protection to a person so employed.
Not every worker who falls at a construction site, and not every object that falls on a
worker, gives rise to the extraordinary protections of Labor Law§ 240(1). Rather, liability is
contingent upon the existence of a hazard contemplated in section 240(1) and the failure to use,
or the inadequacy of, a safety device of the kind enumerated therein (see, Ross v. Curtis-Palmer
Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 N.Y.2d 494, 501, 601 N.Y.S.2d 49, 618 N.E.2d 82).
The decisive question is whether the worker's injuries were the direct consequence of a
failure to provide adequate protection against a risk arising from a physically significant
elevation differential, Nicometi v Vineyards of Fredonia, LLC, 25 NY3d 90 (2015); Runner v
New York Stock Exchange, Inc., 13 NY3d 599 (2009); Gonzalez v Madison Sixty, LLC, 216
AD3d 1141 (2d Dept 2023).
"To establish liability under Labor Law §240(1 ), a plaintiff must demonstrate that the
defendants violated the statute and that this violation was a proximate cause of his injuries."
Melchor v. Singh, 90 A.D.3d 866, 867 (2d Dep't 2011). If a violation of the statute is established
as a proximate cause of the accident, plaintiffs conduct cannot be deemed the sole proximate
cause. Id. at 867.
It is well-settled that the failure to secure a ladder to insure that it remains stable and erect
while the plaintiff was working on it constitutes a violation of Labor Law Section 240(1) as a
matter of law. See, Tuzzolino v. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, 160 A.D.3d 568
(1st Dep't, 2018); Devlin v. Sony Corp. ofAmerica, 237 A.D.2d 201 (1st Dep't 1997); Schultze v.
585 West 214th Street Owners Corp., 228 A.D.2d 381 (1st Dep't 1996).
If a safety device suddenly shifts and moves, a prima facie violation of the statute has
been established without, arguendo, an additional showing that the device was "inherently
151515/2020 LLUILEMA VILLA, SEGUNDO FABIAN vs. WEST 38 RES LLC Page 4 of 7 Motion No. 001
4 of 7 [* 4] [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/16/2024 12:45 P~ INDEX NO. 151515/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 65 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/16/2024
defective." Montalvo v. J Petrocelli Construction, Inc., 8 A.D.3d 173 (1st Dep't 2004); Orellano
v. 29 East 37th street Realty Corp., 292 A.D.2d 289 (1st Dep't 2002).
Plaintiff has satisfied his initial burden by establishing that the ladder from which he fell
did not provide adequate protection pursuant to Labor Law§ 240(1), as the ladder slipped, tipped
and failed to perform its function of supporting Plaintiff as he worked. Tuzzolino v.
Consolidated Edison Company of New York, 160 A.D.3d 568 (1st Dep't, 2018); Rom v.
Eurostruct, 158 A.D.3d 570 (1st Dep't 2018); Kebe v. Greenpoint-Goldman Corp., 150 A.D.3d
453 (1st Dep't 2017); Faver v. Midtown Trackage Ventures, LLC, 150 A.D.3d 580 (1st Dep't
2017).
Defendants argue that a question of fact exist as to whether Plaintiff's accident was a
result of his ladder slipping on ice. Defendants also submit that because there were no witnesses
to Plaintiff's accident, the Site Safety Manager did not see any ladder set up at the location where
Plaintiff claims he fell, and Plaintiff reported to two medical providers that his accident occurred
as a result of him slipping summary judgment should be denied.
The Court does not agree.
It is well-settled that the fact that an accident was unwitnessed does not require denial of
a plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action where, as
here, there is neither a bona fide challenge to Plaintiff's credibility nor to a material fact
concerning the manner in which the accident occurred. See, Klein v. City ofNew York, 89 N.Y.2d
833 (1996); Rubio v. New York Proton Management LLC, 192 A.D.3d 438 (1st Dep't 2021);
Valdez v. City ofNew York, 189 A.D.3d 425 (1st Dep't 2020).
As held by the Court of Appeals the unrefuted testimony by a plaintiff regarding the
movement of a safety device creates a presumption that the device was either defective or
151515/2020 LLUILEMA VILLA, SEGUNDO FABIAN vs. WEST 38 RES LLC Page 5 of 7 Motion No. 001
5 of 7 [* 5] [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/16/2024 12:45 P~ INDEX NO. 151515/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 65 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/16/2024
unsecured against movement, either of which results in a violation, as a matter of law, of Labor
Law § 240(1 ). "In cases involving ladders or scaffolds that collapse or malfunction for no
apparent reason, we have (ever since Stewart v. Ferguson, 164 N.Y. 553, 58 N.E. 662 [1900],
supra) continued to aid plaintiffs with a presumption that the ladder or scaffolding device was
not good enough to afford proper protection." Blake v. Neighborhood Housing Services of New
York City, Inc., I N.Y.3d 280, 289 n. 8 (2003).
The testimony of the site manager that he saw no ladder when he went to investigate is
equally insufficient to create an issue of fact as he did not witness the accident. Marrero v. 2075
Holding Co. LLC, 106 A.D.3d 408 (1st Dep't 2013).
Finally, defendants' assertion that a reasonable person would not have climbed a ladder
under similar icy conditions may establish comparative fault but is not a defense to a Labor Law
§ 240(1) cause of action. Blake at 289.
WHEREFORE it is hereby:
ORDERED thatPlaintiff s motion for summary judgment as to liability on his 240(1) claim
is granted; and it is further
ORDERED that an immediate trial of the issues regarding damages shall be had before the
Court; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff shall, within 20 days from entry of this order, serve a copy of this
order with notice of entry upon counsel for all parties hereto and upon the Clerk of the General
Clerk's Office; and it is further
ORDERED that such service upon the Clerk shall be made in accordance with the
procedures set forth in the Protocol on Courthouse and County Clerk Procedures for
151515/2020 LLUILEMA VILLA, SEGUNDO FABIAN vs. WEST 38 RES LLC Page 6 of 7 Motion No. 001
6 of 7 [* 6] !FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/16/2024 12 :45 PM! INDEX NO. 151515/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 65 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/16/2024
Electronically Filed Cases (accessible at the "E-Filing" page on the court's website at the address
www.nycourts.gov/supctmanh);]; and it is further
ORDERED that counsel appear for a virtual pre-trial conference on January 28, 2024, at
3:00 PM, at which time a final trial date will be scheduled.
This constitutes the decision and order of this court.
12/16/2024 DATE SABRINA KRAUS, J.S.C. CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED NON-FINAL DISPOSITION
GRANTED □ DENIED GRANTED IN PART □ OTHER APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER
CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT □ REFERENCE
151515/2020 LLUILEMA VILLA, SEGUNDO FABIAN vs. WEST 38 RES LLC Page 7 of 7 Motion No. 001
7 of 7 [* 7]