Carranza-Rafael v. LRC Constr. LLC

Summary

The Appellate Division, First Department unanimously affirmed an order granting the plaintiff summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240(1) and an order denying defendants leave to amend their answer to assert fraud. The court held that the plaintiff established a statutory violation by showing that he fell from an unsecured ladder, while defendants failed to raise a triable issue through translated affidavits and accident reports. The court also found the proposed fraud defense palpably insufficient and declined to consider defendants’ amended opposition submitted without leave.

Holdings

1. A worker who establishes that he fell from an unsecured ladder while performing covered work establishes prima facie entitlement to summary judgment under Labor Law § 240(1), without needing to prove that the ladder was defective or identify the precise reason it moved.
2. A translated affidavit is inadmissible under CPLR 2101(b) when it is not accompanied by a translator's affidavit attesting to the translator's qualifications and the accuracy of the translation; unauthenticated or hearsay accident reports likewise do not raise a triable issue of fact.
3. The denial of leave to amend was proper because the proposed fraud defense was palpably insufficient where plaintiff was not a defendant in the cited RICO action and there was no indication that he knowingly made material misrepresentations about his injuries.
4. A court may decline to consider an amended opposition submitted after the opposing party's reply and without leave of court.

Questions Presented

1. Whether plaintiff established prima facie entitlement to summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240(1) based on his fall from an unsecured ladder.
2. Whether defendants' affidavit and accident reports raised a triable issue of fact sufficient to defeat summary judgment.
3. Whether Supreme Court properly denied defendants leave to amend their answer to add a fraud affirmative defense.
4. Whether Supreme Court properly declined to consider defendants' amended opposition submitted after plaintiff's reply and without leave of court.

Disposition

affirmed