Fields v. Junius-Liberty Dev. LLC

Fields, 2026 NY Slip Op 01401 (Supreme Court of the State of New York Appellate Division First Department 2026) · Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, First Department · March 12, 2026 · No. Index No. 808496/22; Appeal No. 6066; Case No. 2025-02246

Summary

The Appellate Division, First Department unanimously affirmed an order granting the plaintiff summary judgment on liability under Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6). The court held that the plaintiff established a violation of Labor Law § 240(1) by showing that he fell from an unsecured ladder while performing construction-related repair work, and that the defendant failed to raise a triable issue regarding routine maintenance, sole proximate cause, or comparative negligence.

Holdings

  1. Plaintiff established prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by showing that defendant failed to supply adequate safety devices to protect him from falling from the ladder.
  2. Defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact that plaintiff was engaged in mere routine maintenance; plaintiff's repair of a ceiling leak was work protected by the Labor Law.
  3. Defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact that plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his injuries.
  4. Comparative negligence is not a defense to a Labor Law § 240(1) claim.
  5. Defendant's arguments concerning the Labor Law § 241(6) claim were academic because summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240(1) claim was properly granted.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether plaintiff established prima facie entitlement to summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240(1) by showing that defendant failed to provide adequate safety devices.
  2. Whether plaintiff's repair work constituted mere routine maintenance outside the protections of the Labor Law.
  3. Whether defendant raised a triable issue of fact as to plaintiff's status as the sole proximate cause of his injuries.
  4. Whether plaintiff's alleged comparative negligence or conduct in touching a hot pipe defeated his Labor Law § 240(1) claim.
  5. Whether defendant's arguments concerning Labor Law § 241(6) required reversal when summary judgment under Labor Law § 240(1) was properly granted.

Disposition

affirmed

Cases Cited (5)

  • Begnoja v. Hudson Riv. Park Trust, 238 A.D.3d 481, 481 (1st Dep't 2025)(applied)
  • Daniello v. J.T. Magen & Co. Inc., 239 A.D.3d 516, 517 (1st Dep't 2025)(applied)
  • Rodriguez v. BSREP UA Heritage LLC, 181 A.D.3d 537, 538 (1st Dep't 2020)(applied)
  • Rivas v. Panama Leasing, LLC, 238 A.D.3d 549, 549-550 (1st Dep't 2025)(applied)
  • Hill v. Acies Group, LLC, 122 A.D.3d 428, 429 (1st Dep't 2014)(applied)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…