Ochoa v. 3475 Third Ave. Hous. Dev. Fund Corp.

Summary

The New York Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order granting the plaintiff summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240(1) and denying defendants’ cross-motion seeking dismissal of the Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) claims. The court held that the unsecured extension ladder’s collapse established a prima facie statutory violation, and that defendants failed to raise a triable issue concerning sole proximate cause. The court also held that retrieving materials for ongoing sprinkler installation constituted protected activity and that any comparative negligence was not a defense to the § 240(1) claim.

Holdings

1. Plaintiff was properly granted summary judgment on liability because his testimony established that an unsecured extension ladder, placed by another worker and used to travel between work areas, slid and collapsed while he was on it, and defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding a statutory violation.
2. Defendants failed to raise a triable issue that plaintiff's acts or omissions were the sole proximate cause of the accident. Even if plaintiff was in an area where he was not supposed to be, that conduct would constitute comparative negligence, which is not a defense to a Labor Law § 240(1) claim.
3. Plaintiff's retrieval of materials for ongoing sprinkler installation work was a protected activity under Labor Law § 240(1), because duties ancillary to enumerated construction activities fall within the statute's protection.
4. Defendants' arguments concerning the Labor Law § 241(6) claim were academic because plaintiff's entitlement to summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240(1) was properly established.

Questions Presented

1. Whether plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240(1) after an unsecured extension ladder slid and collapsed while he was descending it.
2. Whether defendants raised a triable issue of fact that plaintiff's own acts or omissions were the sole proximate cause of the accident.
3. Whether plaintiff's retrieval of materials for ongoing sprinkler installation constituted protected activity under Labor Law § 240(1).
4. Whether defendants' arguments concerning the Labor Law § 241(6) claim required reversal or other relief.

Disposition

affirmed