Panfilow v. 66 E. 83rd St. Owners Corp.

Summary

The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed an order denying the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment under Labor Law § 240(1) and the defendants' cross-motion concerning Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence. The court found good cause for the plaintiff's delayed motion due to outstanding discovery and granted summary judgment to the plaintiff on the Labor Law § 240(1) claim. It also granted the defendants summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims.

Holdings

1. Plaintiff demonstrated good cause for moving for summary judgment after the 60-day deadline because the trial court required filing of the note of issue while significant discovery remained outstanding and the parties thereafter substantially complied with the court-ordered discovery schedule.
2. Plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240(1) because defendants failed to satisfy their nondelegable duty to provide a safe and adequate ladder for plaintiff's elevation-related work, and that failure proximately caused his injuries.
3. Defendants were entitled to summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims because they demonstrated that they neither created nor had actual or constructive notice of the condition alleged to have caused the accident and lacked authority to supervise or control the means and methods of plaintiff's work.

Questions Presented

1. Whether plaintiff established good cause for moving for summary judgment more than 60 days after filing the note of issue.
2. Whether plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240(1) based on defendants' failure to provide a safe and adequate ladder for elevation-related work.
3. Whether defendants were entitled to summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims because they did not create or have notice of the dangerous condition and lacked authority to supervise or control the means and methods of plaintiff's work.
4. Whether the Appellate Division should reach the merits rather than remit the matter to the Supreme Court.

Disposition

reversed