Case Title: Hugh Gallagher v. The New York Post / NYP Holdings, Inc. v. Francis A. Lee Co.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: new-york

Court: New York Appellate Court

Date: 2010-02-11T00:00:00Z

Document:
- 1 -
=================================================================
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before
publication in the New York Reports.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
No. 8  
Hugh Gallagher, et al.,
            Appellants,
        v.
The New York Post, et al.,
            Respondents,
---------------------------------
NYP Holdings, Inc.,
            Respondent,
        v.
Francis A. Lee Co.,
            Respondent.
Scott N. Singer, for appellants.
Richard C. Imbrogno, for respondents The New York Post and
NYP Holdings, Inc.
Howard K. Fishman, for respondent Francis A. Lee Co.
PIGOTT, J.:
On June 28, 2004, plaintiff Hugh Gallagher, an
ironworker, was assigned to remove a section of metal decking
from the second floor of a building in the Bronx owned by
defendant NYP Holdings, Inc. ("NYP"), in preparation for the
- 2 -
No. 8
1  Plaintiffs sued NYP as "The New York Post and NYP
Holdings, Inc."
- 2 -
installation of new flooring.  He was partnered with another
ironworker, Jim Gaffney; the two men worked under the direction
of foreman Joe Nover.  Gallagher was cutting the metal with a
two-handled, powered saw, enlarging an opening created by other
workers.  According to Gallagher, he was holding both handles of
the saw when its blade jammed, propelling him forward so that he
fell through the uncovered opening.  Gallagher landed on a
temporary floor situated between the first and second levels,
sustaining injuries.
Gallagher and his wife commenced this personal injury
action against NYP,1 alleging, among other things, violations of
Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1) and 241 (6).  Relevant to this appeal,
plaintiffs allege that NYP failed to provide Gallagher safety
devices to prevent a fall from an elevated work site, in
violation of Labor Law § 240 (1).  
At his deposition, the assistant project manager at the
NYP work site, Jonathan Schreck, testified that "safety harnesses
with shock-absorbing lanyards" and "retracting lanyards that we
refer to as yo-yos" were available for use at the project site on
- 3 -
No. 8
- 3 -
the date of the accident, but he could not say whether any such
safety devices were in the area from which Gallagher fell. 
Schreck also testified that, at the time of the accident, there
was a "standing order," issued by project manager Mark Piazza to
the project foremen, that the ironworkers should "have a harness
on and be tied off."  However, he could not recall whether these
instructions had been given to the ironworkers.  
Schreck, who had taken Gallagher to the hospital after
the accident, testified that Gallagher had given him the
impression that he had been holding the saw with only one hand
and that he had fallen as he reached to grab the jammed saw with
his other hand.  He stated that Gallagher had told him that he
had not been cleared by his doctor to return to work, following a
2002 accident and related surgeries to his right hand.  Gallagher
himself stated at his deposition that he could not complete a
grip with his right hand, because the tip of his little finger
was missing.  But he insisted that he had been cleared to return
to work by the date of his accident.
Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment on their
Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, pointing to an affidavit by Gaffney
stating that "there were no safety lines, lifelines or stanchions
- 4 -
No. 8
2  NYP also commenced a third-party action against
Gallagher's employer, Francis A. Lee Co.; that action is not
before this Court.
- 4 -
in the work area, and [he and Gallagher] were not provided with
safety belts, harnesses or yo-yos in order to tie off."  NYP
cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in its
entirety.2  NYP relied in large part on Schreck's deposition
testimony that safety devices were available for use at the
project site, and concerning the "standing order."  NYP also
argued that Gallagher had not been medically cleared to return to
work following his 2002 accident, and that his premature return
was the sole proximate cause of his injuries. 
In further support of their motion, plaintiffs
introduced an affidavit signed by Nover, Gallagher's foreman,
who, according to Schreck, would have been the person responsible
for relaying safety instructions to the ironworkers.  Nover
stated that Gallagher had not been "provided with a safety
harness or lifeline, nor were any stanchions or safety cables in
the accident area at the time of the accident."
Supreme Court denied plaintiffs' summary judgment
- 5 -
No. 8
3  Supreme Court granted NYP's cross-motion to the extent of
dismissing the Labor Law § 200 claim but, on reargument,
reinstated the claim.  The Appellate Division dismissed the § 200
claim.  Plaintiffs do not appeal this part of the Appellate
Division order.
- 5 -
motion.3  Initially it did so on the ground that Schreck's
deposition testimony raised a question of fact as to whether
safety devices had been provided to Gallagher.  On reargument,
Supreme Court acknowledged that it had overlooked Nover's
affidavit and decided that no trial issue of fact existed as to
whether Gallagher had been provided with appropriate safety
devices.  Nevertheless, Supreme Court ruled that the summary
judgment motion should be denied -- apparently on the basis that
Gallagher may have returned to work prematurely, and that the
weakness of his grip on the saw may have been the sole proximate
cause of his accident.
The Appellate Division agreed with Supreme Court's
initial rationale for denying plaintiffs summary judgment,
holding that Schreck's testimony was sufficient to raise issues
of fact as to whether Gallagher had been provided with adequate
safety devices and instructed to use them, but had declined to do
so.  Two Justices dissented.  The Appellate Division granted
- 6 -
No. 8
- 6 -
plaintiffs leave to appeal, and we now reverse.
Through the affidavits of Gaffney and Nover, plaintiffs
made a prima facie showing that NYP violated Labor Law § 240 (1)
by failing to furnish adequate safety devices to Gallagher.  Both
men asserted that the ironworkers were not provided with
necessary safety devices, corroborating Gallagher's own similar
testimony.  The burden then shifted to NYP to raise a question of
fact as to whether there was a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). 
NYP argues that it met this burden through evidence that adequate
safety devices were provided to Gallagher or, in the alternative,
evidence that the sole proximate cause of Gallagher's fall was
that he prematurely returned to work.  
NYP relies on our decision in Montgomery v Federal
Express Corp. (4 NY3d 805 [2005]).  In Montgomery, we held that a
worker who injured himself when he jumped from an elevator motor
room to a roof, rather than use a "readily available" ladder, was
not entitled to recover under Labor Law § 240 (1).  Similarly, in
Robinson v East Med. Ctr., LP (6 NY3d 550, 553 [2006]), we held
that a plumber who lost his balance and injured himself, when he
used a six-foot ladder to install pipes at a height of 12 to 13
feet from the floor, could not recover under § 240 (1), because
- 7 -
No. 8
- 7 -
he knew that there were eight-foot ladders on the job site and
exactly where they could be found.  Both cases stand for the same
proposition.  Liability under § 240 (1) does not attach when the
safety devices that plaintiff alleges were absent were readily
available at the work site, albeit not in the immediate vicinity
of the accident, and plaintiff knew he was expected to use them
but for no good reason chose not to do so, causing an accident. 
In such cases, plaintiff's own negligence is the sole proximate
cause of his injury (see Cahill v Triborough Bridge & Tunnel
Auth., 4 NY3d 35, 39-40 [2004]).
This is not such a case.  There is no evidence in the
record that Gallagher knew where to find the safety devices that
NYP argues were readily available or that he was expected to use
them.  Although Schreck testified that appropriate safety devices
were available at the project site on the date of the accident,
nowhere in his testimony did Schreck state that Gallagher had
been told to use such safety devices.  Schreck referred to a
"standing order" issued to the project foremen, directing workers
to "have a harness on and be tied off," but could not say whether
the order had been conveyed to the workers.  Moreover, the
affidavit of Gallagher's foreman, Nover, who was not deposed,
- 8 -
No. 8
- 8 -
does not support NYP's claim that Gallagher was told about safety
devices.  Nover stated that Gallagher had not been provided with
the requisite safety devices, a proposition that is consistent
either with Gallagher's ignorance of the availability of safety
devices or with his knowledge thereof.  Even viewed in the light
most favorable to NYP (as it must be when we consider plaintiffs'
motion for summary judgment), the evidence does not raise a
question of fact that Gallagher knew of the availability of the
safety devices and unreasonably chose not to use them.
Finally, even if Gallagher's grip on the saw was not up
to full strength as a result of his prior injury, such weakness
in his hand would at most have contributed towards his loss of
balance, and cannot as a matter of law have been the sole
proximate cause of his fall from the second floor to the
temporary floor.
Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division,
insofar as appealed from, should be reversed, with costs,
plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment as to liability on their
Labor Law § 240 (1) claim granted, and the certified question
answered in the negative.
*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *     
- 9 -
No. 8
- 9 -
Order, insofar as appealed from, reversed, with costs, 
plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment as to liability on their
Labor Law § 240(1) claim granted, and certified question answered
in the negative.  Opinion by Judge Pigott.  Chief Judge Lippman
and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith and Jones concur.
Decided February 11, 2010