Wheeler v. BrandSafway Indus., LLC

2025 NY Slip Op 03889 (Appellate Division Fourth Judicial Department 2025) · Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department · June 27, 2025 · No. 309 CA 23-02155

Summary

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, reviews appeals and cross-appeals regarding summary judgment motions in a Labor Law action arising from a construction worker's fall from a scaffold ladder. The court addresses issues of spoliation of evidence, discovery sanctions, statutory agency under Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6), and whether the plaintiff's conduct constituted sole proximate cause. The court modifies the lower court's order by reinstating the Labor Law § 240(1) claim against certain defendants, dismissing the Labor Law § 241(6) claim against Brandsafway, vacating monetary sanctions against counsel, and affirming the rest without costs.

Court
Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
Writing for the Court
Lindley, J.P.; Montour; Ogden; Greenwood; Keane
Jurisdiction
New York
Decision date
June 27, 2025
Docket number
309 CA 23-02155
Procedural posture
Appeal and cross‑appeals from a Supreme Court, Niagara County order denying plaintiff’s partial summary‑judgment motion and granting parts of the defendants’ summary‑judgment motions; the Appellate Division reviewed the summary‑judgment rulings and sanctions imposed.
Precedential value
published
Parties
Bryan Wheeler v. BrandSafway Industries, LLC; New York Power Authority; Maid of the Mist Corporation; Maid of the Mist Enterprises, Inc.; Maid of the Mist Hospitality, LLC
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

appellate proceduresummary judgmentnegligencecivil procedure

Practice areas

construction lawtorts

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Brandsafway Industries, LLC is a statutory agent of the owner or general contractor for purposes of Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6).
  2. Whether the codefendants violated Labor Law § 240(1).
  3. Whether the codefendants violated Labor Law § 241(6).
  4. Whether the $10,000 sanction imposed under CPLR 3126 was proper.
  5. Whether the summary‑judgment rulings on the various Labor Law claims were correct.

Holdings

  1. Brandsafway is not a statutory agent because it lacked authority to supervise or control the injury‑producing work; therefore the court properly granted Brandsafway’s cross‑motion dismissing the Labor Law claims against it.
  2. The appellate court reversed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment dismissing Wheeler’s § 240(1) claim against the codefendants and reinstated the claim.
  3. The sanction was improper because the defendants’ counsel did not willfully fail to disclose evidence; the court therefore modified the order and vacated the sanction.

Key quotations

"Under the common-law doctrine of spoliation, when a party negligently loses or intentionally destroys key evidence, the responsible party may be sanctioned under CPLR 3126" (Helm v. Sung‑Hoon Yang, 169 AD3d 1458, 1458 [4th Dept 2019]). (at 1)

Factual background

Wheeler, an employee of a non‑party, was injured when he fell from a scaffold ladder while carrying a 25‑30‑pound box of wire on a boat‑construction project at Niagara Falls. The ladder had no stair towers, ramps, or runways. Brandsafway Industries erected the scaffolds; New York Power Authority owned the property; Maid of the Mist entities were licensed to use the property.

Procedural history

The Supreme Court, Niagara County denied Wheeler’s motion for partial summary judgment on Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) and granted portions of the defendants’ summary‑judgment motions. The parties appealed and cross‑appealed. The Appellate Division considered the agency analysis under Labor Law, the propriety of the summary‑judgment rulings, and the $10,000 sanction imposed under CPLR 3126.

Remand instructions

Reinstate Wheeler’s Labor Law § 240(1) claim against the codefendants; vacate the $10,000 sanction against the codefendants’ law firm; affirm Brandsafway’s summary‑judgment dismissal of its Labor Law claims.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…