Summary
This New York Appellate Division decision addresses a workplace injury claim brought by a demolition worker who fell while accessing the roof of a walk-in freezer. The court reviews the trial court's orders denying the plaintiff's partial summary judgment on Labor Law § 240(1) claims and granting his subsequent motion to renew based on a supplemental expert affidavit. Holding that genuine issues of fact exist regarding the adequacy of safety equipment and whether the plaintiff's conduct was the sole proximate cause, the appellate court affirms the denial of summary judgment but reverses the grant of renewal, finding the proffered evidence was not newly discovered and could have been submitted earlier.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court erred in denying plaintiff's partial summary judgment on Labor Law §240(1) by finding a genuine issue of fact regarding the adequacy of safety equipment and proximate cause.
- Whether the trial court erred in granting plaintiff's motion to renew/reargue summary judgment under CPLR 2221.
Holdings
- The appellate division affirmed the trial court’s denial because genuine issues of fact existed as to whether adequate safety equipment was provided and whether plaintiff’s conduct was the sole proximate cause of his injury.
- The appellate division reversed the trial court’s order granting renewal because the renewal did not present new facts or justification required by CPLR 2221.
Key quotations
“Liability under this statute arises when a worker's injuries are the direct consequence of a failure to provide adequate protection against a risk arising from a physically significant elevation differential.”
“To prevail on a summary judgment motion for a Labor Law §240(1) claim, the plaintiff must show that the statute was violated and that the violation proximately caused his or her injury.”
Factual background
In August 2020 plaintiff, an employee of DMC Facility Services, was demolishing a walk‑in freezer at an Olive Garden restaurant in Vestal, Broome County. While cutting around a sprinkler head from the roof, the freezer roof collapsed, causing plaintiff to fall and sustain injuries to his right side and head. The restaurant was owned by Feinberg‑Harris Properties, leased to N & D Restaurants, and managed by Darden Restaurants, Inc.
Procedural history
The Supreme Court, Broome County denied plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on Labor Law §240(1) and granted defendants' cross‑motion for summary judgment. The court later granted plaintiff's motion to renew/reargue, leaving the denial of partial summary judgment intact. Burgos appeals the denial and defendants cross‑appeal the renewal order.