Daniello v. J.T. Magen & Co. Inc.

Daniello, 2025 NY Slip Op 03649 (Appellate Division First Department 2025) · Appellate Division, First Department · June 17, 2025 · No. Index No. 158947/19, 595110/22; Appeal No. 4593; Case No. 2024-05100

Summary

This Appellate Division, First Department decision addresses a plaintiff's appeal regarding the denial of partial summary judgment on a New York Labor Law § 240(1) claim. The court reversed the lower court's order, holding that the plaintiff established a prima facie case that the A-frame ladder he was using for overhead ceiling work was an inadequate safety device. The court emphasized that the plaintiff's fall was directly related to his work duties rather than a personal misstep, and that inspecting the ladder beforehand does not negate liability for its inadequacy as a safety device. Consequently, the plaintiff was granted partial summary judgment on his claim.

Court
Appellate Division, First Department
Writing for the Court
Manzanet-Daniels, J.P.; Webber, J.; Kapnick, J.; Higgitt, J.; Michael, J.
Jurisdiction
New York
Decision date
June 17, 2025
Docket number
Index No. 158947/19, 595110/22; Appeal No. 4593; Case No. 2024-05100
Procedural posture
Appeal from Supreme Court, New York County order granting defendants' summary judgment and denying plaintiff's partial summary judgment on Labor Law §240(1) claim.
Precedential value
published
Parties
Thomas Daniello v. J.T. Magen & Company Inc., 770 Broadway Owner LLC, et al.
Disposition
reversed

Topics

summary judgmentcivil procedurenegligencepremises liability

Practice areas

tortscivil procedureemployment law

Questions Presented

  1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to partial summary judgment on his Labor Law §240(1) claim when the ladder used was an inadequate safety device and plaintiff had inspected the ladder prior to use.

Holdings

  1. Plaintiff is entitled to partial summary judgment on his Labor Law §240(1) claim because the A‑frame ladder was an inadequate safety device, and plaintiff need not show the ladder was defective prior to inspection.

Key quotations

'[i]t is irrelevant that plaintiff inspected the ladder and found it to be in good order before using it, as [a] plaintiff is not required to demonstrate that the ladder was defective in order to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240(1) claim' (at 1)

Factual background

Plaintiff Thomas Daniello was using an A‑frame ladder to perform overhead ceiling‑wiring work. During the work a ceiling tile dropped, causing the ladder to “wiggle” and leading to his loss of balance and fall. The ladder was found to be an inadequate safety device despite plaintiff having inspected it and found it in good order.

Procedural history

The Supreme Court, New York County entered an order granting defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's Labor Law §240(1) claim and denying the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment. Daniello appealed that order to the Appellate Division, First Department.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…