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This content has been archived.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 AllTroutman Pepper Accused of Inattentive Case Management in $59M Malpractice Suit
7 minute readBrooklyn Man Convicted of Running $55 Million Check-Cashing Scheme
Decision of the Day: Plaintiff Failed to Show Defendants Had Control of Worksite or Notice of Hazards
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Dechert partners Andrew J. Levander, Angela M. Liu and Neil A. Steiner have stepped in to defend Arbor Realty Trust and certain executives in a pending securities class action. The complaint, filed July 31 in New York Eastern District Court by Levi & Korsinsky, contends that the defendants concealed a 'toxic' mobile home portfolio, vastly overstated collateral in regards to the company's loans and failed to disclose an investigation of the company by the FBI. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Pamela K. Chen, is 1:24-cv-05347, Martin v. Arbor Realty Trust, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Arthur G. Jakoby, Ryan Feeney and Maxim M.L. Nowak from Herrick Feinstein have stepped in to defend Charles Dilluvio and Seacor Capital in a pending securities lawsuit. The complaint, filed Sept. 30 in New York Southern District Court by the Securities and Exchange Commission, accuses the defendants of using consulting agreements, attorney opinion letters and other mechanisms to skirt regulations limiting stock sales by affiliate companies and allowing the defendants to unlawfully profit from sales of Enzolytics stock. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr., is 1:24-cv-07362, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Zhabilov et al.
Who Got The Work
Clark Hill members Vincent Roskovensky and Kevin B. Watson have entered appearances for Architectural Steel and Associated Products in a pending environmental lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 27 in Pennsylvania Eastern District Court by Brodsky & Smith on behalf of Hung Trinh, accuses the defendant of discharging polluted stormwater from its steel facility without a permit in violation of the Clean Water Act. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Gerald J. Pappert, is 2:24-cv-04490, Trinh v. Architectural Steel And Associated Products, Inc.
Who Got The Work
Michael R. Yellin of Cole Schotz has entered an appearance for S2 d/b/a the Shoe Surgeon, Dominic Chambrone a/k/a Dominic Ciambrone and other defendants in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed July 15 in New York Southern District Court by DLA Piper on behalf of Nike, seeks to enjoin Ciambrone and the other defendants in their attempts to build an 'entire multifaceted' retail empire through their unauthorized use of Nike’s trademark rights. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, is 1:24-cv-05307, Nike Inc. v. S2, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Sullivan & Cromwell partner Adam S. Paris has entered an appearance for Orthofix Medical in a pending securities class action arising from a proposed acquisition of SeaSpine by Orthofix. The suit, filed Sept. 6 in California Southern District Court, by Girard Sharp and the Hall Firm, contends that the offering materials and related oral communications contained untrue statements of material fact. According to the complaint, the defendants made a series of misrepresentations about Orthofix’s disclosure controls and internal controls over financial reporting and ethical compliance. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Linda Lopez, is 3:24-cv-01593, O'Hara v. Orthofix Medical Inc. et al.
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