CONSTRUCTION WORKER'S LABOR LAW SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION DENIED; ISSUES OF FACT WHETHER CONDUIT PIPE THAT STRUCK HIM WAS "FALLING OBJECT" & WHETHER HE FELL FROM LADDER OR JUMPED

Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York

Case: Michael D'Antonio v. Manhattan Contracting Corporation

Date: March 6, 2012

From: New York attorney Gary E. Rosenberg (personal injury and accident attorney and lawyer; serving Bronx and Queens; Queens accident attorney)

**************************************************

RELATED POSTS:

NEW YORK LABOR LAW INTERPRETED BROADLY TO GIVE JUST RESULT TO CONSTRUCTION WORKER INJURED BY FALLING PIPES (Posted by Brooklyn injury attorney Gary E. Rosenberg on Dec 5, 2011

WORKER GETS SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW CLAIM DUE TO HOISTED PIPE DROPPING AND STRIKING HIM; DEFENDANTS FAILED TO PROVIDE AN ADEQUATE SAFETY DEVICE

FOUR-TON STEEL BLOCK, EVEN DROPPED SHORT DISTANCE, MAKES OUT N.Y.S. LABOR LAW "FALLING-OBJECT CLAIM" FOR INJURED WORKER (Posted by Brooklyn injury attorney Gary E. Rosenberg on Apr 8, 2012)

**************************************************

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton A. Tingling, J.), entered June 24, 2011, which denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on his Labor Law Sec. 240(1) cause of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff, an employee of third‑party defendant Wilkstone, LLC, was working at a construction site owned by defendant 112 West 34th Street Company, LLC and managed by defendant Manhattan Contracting Corporation, when he was injured while installing temporary lighting. Plaintiff was standing on the third rung of a closed A‑frame ladder that was propped up against a wall, when he was struck on the head by a conduit pipe that housed wires, which partially detached from the wall and swung downward.

Summary judgment was properly denied as there are triable issues of fact which exist regarding whether the conduit pipe constituted a falling object within the meaning of Labor Law Sec. 240(1) and whether the events leading to plaintiff's injury were due to the absence or inadequacy of a safety device of the type enumerated in the statute (see generally Wilinski v. 334 East 92nd Hous. Dev. Fund Corp., 18 N.Y.3d 1, 935 N.Y.S.2d 551, 959 N.E.2d 488 [2011]; Narducci v. Manhasset Bay Assoc., 96 N.Y.2d 259, 727 N.Y.S.2d 37, 750 N.E.2d 1085 [2001]).

Additionally, although plaintiff maintains that he fell from the ladder when he was hit on the head, there is conflicting evidence as to whether he deliberately jumped, was knocked off by the pipe, or lost his footing when the ladder allegedly "shook," precluding a determination, as a matter of law, that the ladder constituted an inadequate safety device (see Antenucci v. Three Dogs, LLC, 41 A.D.3d 205, 838 N.Y.S.2d 513 [2007])

We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Categories