Summary
This Appellate Division decision reviews a lower court order denying cross-motions for summary judgment in a personal injury action alleging a violation of New York Labor Law § 240(1). The appellate court affirmed the denial of the plaintiffs' motion as untimely and without good cause. Regarding the defendant's motion, the court held that the defendant failed to establish prima facie entitlement to judgment because it did not prove the injured worker was the sole proximate cause of his injuries under the recalcitrant worker doctrine. Consequently, the Supreme Court's order was affirmed in its entirety.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the plaintiff’s alleged sole proximate cause bars liability under Labor Law §240(1)
- Whether the plaintiff’s summary‑judgment motion was filed untimely
Holdings
- The defendant failed to establish that the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his injuries; therefore, the motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law §240(1) claim was denied.
- The plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was untimely and properly denied.
Key quotations
“'Labor Law § 240(1) requires that safety devices such as ladders be so constructed, placed and operated as to give proper protection to a worker' (Iannaccone v. United Natural Foods, Inc., 219 AD3d at 820).” (at 820)
“'Where the plaintiff is the sole proximate cause of his or her own injuries, there can be no liability under Labor Law § 240(1)' (Iannaccone v. United Natural Foods, Inc., 219 AD3d at 820).” (at 820)
“'A plaintiff may be the sole proximate cause of his or her own injuries when, acting as a recalcitrant worker, he or she (1) had adequate safety devices available, (2) knew both that the safety devices were available and that [he or she] was expected to use them, (3) chose for no good reason not to do so, and (4) would not have been injured had [he or she] not made that choice' (Iannaccone v. United Natural Foods, Inc., 219 AD3d at 820).” (at 820)
Factual background
Plaintiff Fermin Gonzalez Acosta was injured when a rafter he was standing on collapsed at a construction site and sued Shanahan Group, LLC alleging a violation of Labor Law §240(1). The issue turned on whether the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his injuries and whether his summary‑judgment motion was timely.
Procedural history
The Supreme Court, Westchester County denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on liability under Labor Law §240(1) and denied the defendant's motion to dismiss the same claim. Both parties appealed, and the Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's denials.