Court Opinion

ID: 9810824
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 22:00:50.453142+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:40:15.611426
License: Public Domain

Sweeny, J.R, and Saxe, J.,
dissent in a memorandum by Saxe, J., as follows: The majority has failed to acknowledge an incontrovertible principle of Labor Law jurisprudence: that a plaintiff-worker’s testimony that he fell from a non-defective ladder while performing work does not alone establish liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) (see Blake v Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of N.Y. City, 1 NY3d 280, 288 [2003]). The Blake Court explained that a plaintiff is entitled to “a presumption that the ladder or scaffolding device was not good enough to afford proper protection” where “ladders or scaffolds . . . collapse or malfunction for no apparent reason” (1 NY3d at 289 n 8 [emphasis added and citation omitted]). But, this is not that case; the ladder certainly did not collapse, nor is it apparent that it even can be said to have malfunctioned.
The case of Ross v 1510 Assoc. LLC (106 AD3d 471 [1st Dept 2013]), relied on by the majority, affirmed a grant of summary judgment to the plaintiff on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim where he fell from an A-frame ladder that was provided for his use, but the ladder had “shifted because of the unevenness of the floor” (id. at 471 [emphasis added]). Although the ladder itself was not defective, it had provided the plaintiff there with insufficient protection since an uneven floor could render an ordinary A-frame ladder inadequate, lacking any means of adjustment to account for the unevenness.
*435It is true that this Court has awarded summary judgment for workers’ falls from non-defective A-frame ladders based on their being “unsecured” (see e.g. McCarthy v Turner Constr., Inc., 52 AD3d 333 [1st Dept 2008]). However, plaintiff’s showing failed to establish as an undisputed fact that a device could have been used to secure the ladder to something stable, or to prevent it from tipping, and that such a device would have protected him.
On the contrary, his own deposition testimony created triable issues of fact as to whether the ladder from which he fell lacked adequate safety devices that would have prevented him from falling while he was performing the assigned framing work (see Campise v Cohen, 302 AD2d 332 [1st Dept 2003]). He acknowledged that the ladder’s bracing mechanisms were secured, and that it had rubber feet that were not slippery; there was no indication that any condition of the floor contributed to his accident. Although plaintiff testified that while he was standing on the fourth rung of a six-foot A-frame ladder, it began to tip over causing him to lose his balance and fall, he also stated that the feet of the ladder did not move before he lost his balance, and that he and the ladder fell at the same time. Under such circumstances, summary judgment should be denied (see e.g. Campos v 68 E. 86th St. Owners Corp., 117 AD3d 593, 594 [1st Dept 2014]).
Plaintiffs reliance on Bland v Manocherian (66 NY2d 452 [1985]) is misplaced. In Bland, as opposed to this case, there were affirmed findings of fact after trial that the ladder from which plaintiff fell “was not placed so as to give proper protection and that the improper placement was a proximate cause of the accident” (Bland at 460 [internal quotation marks omitted]).
Triable issues of fact also exist as to whether the manner in which plaintiff performed his work was the sole proximate cause of the accident. There is evidence that plaintiff placed the ladder in a position where he had to lean and reach around the side of it to affix the wall stud, while holding and applying pressure to the drill and the stud (see Santiago v Fred-Doug 117, L.L.C., 68 AD3d 555, 556 [1st Dept 2009]).
Therefore, I would affirm the motion court’s denial of partial summary judgment on plaintiff’s Labor Law § 240 (1) claim.