Court of Appeals Tackles Ladders and Labor Law 240(1)
The decisions are refreshing anomalies amid the landscape of New York courts reflexively granting plaintiffs summary judgment on §240(1) claims in ladder fall cases and will produce significant ripples in the area.
May 02, 2022 at 11:00 AM
8 minute read
On April 28, 2022, the Court of Appeals decided a trio of Labor Law §240(1) ladder fall cases, all of which resulted in either the denial of summary judgment to the plaintiff or the dismissal of the claim altogether. The decisions are refreshing anomalies amid the landscape of New York courts reflexively granting plaintiffs summary judgment on §240(1) claims in ladder fall cases and will produce significant ripples in the area.
'Cutaia v. The Board of Managers of the 160/170 Varick Street Condominium'. In Cutaia, plaintiff was tasked with cutting and rerouting ceiling pipes located near electrical wiring. To reach the pipes, he used an A-frame ladder, which he leaned against the wall in the closed position due to spatial limitations. While attempting to connect two pipes, plaintiff was electrocuted and fell to the ground. He could not remember anything about the accident, including whether the ladder fell or whether he was thrown from it after being electrocuted.
The Appellate Division, First Department, found that the "unsecured and unsupported A-frame ladder" was inadequate for plaintiff's task because "the failure to properly secure a ladder … is precisely the foreseeable elevation-related risk against which section 240(1) was designed to protect." Cutaia v. Bd. of Managers of 160/170 Varick St. Condo., 172 A.D.3d 424 (1st Dep't 2019). The fact that the accident stemmed from plaintiff's electrocution did not impact the First Department's analysis. On this point, the court distinguished the Court of Appeals' prior holding in Nazario v. 222 Broadway, LLC, 28 N.Y.3d 1054 (2016), reasoning that the ladder in Nazario "remained in an open locked position when it landed" and, therefore, no evidence existed "that the ladder was defective or that another safety device was needed." In other words, the First Department, not for the first time, took the position that a plaintiff's fall from a non-defective ladder due to an external force constitutes a per se statutory violation unless the ladder was affixed to the floor or wall—i.e., that all A-frame ladders are inherently defective until bolted down.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFraud 'Beyond Doubt': Judge Awards $1.6 Billion Over Delayed Resort Development
Navigating Construction Litigation in the Appellate Division: Best Practices and Key Takeaways
10 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250