Waldemar Biaca-Neto, et al. v. Boston Road II Housing Development Fund Corporation, et al.

Summary

The New York Court of Appeals modified the Appellate Division's order to deny defendants summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240(1) claim and the related loss-of-consortium claim. The Court held that a triable issue existed as to whether the plaintiff knew he was expected to use available safety devices, given evidence that workers commonly entered the building through scaffold window cut-outs. The Court left undisturbed the dismissal of the common-law negligence and Labor Law §§ 200 and 241(6) claims.

Holdings

1. Defendants were not entitled to summary judgment because a triable issue of fact existed as to whether plaintiff knew he was expected to use the available safety devices.
2. The portion of the derivative loss of consortium claim based on Labor Law § 240 (1) was also improperly dismissed and had to be reinstated.
3. The Court declined to reinstate the causes of action sounding in common-law negligence and Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6).

Questions Presented

1. Whether defendants were entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim under the sole-proximate-cause defense where the record raised a factual issue regarding whether plaintiff knew he was expected to use the available safety devices.
2. Whether the derivative loss of consortium claim based on Labor Law § 240 (1) was also improperly dismissed.
3. Whether the common-law negligence and Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) claims should be reinstated.

Disposition

affirmed