In R. v. ** W. 56th Street, the Appellate Division, Second Department, considered whether N.R., a demolition worker injured by a falling HVAC duct, was entitled to protection under New York Labor Law § 240(1).
R. was employed by A.S., Inc. to remove debris during a renovation project. While performing this task, a duct being removed from the ceiling allegedly fell and struck her. She brought an action against ** W., the property owner, and A.C., the general contractor, alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240(1), which requires contractors and owners to provide safety devices to protect workers from elevation-related hazards.
Labor Law § 240(1) mandates that contractors and owners involved in construction, demolition, or similar work must furnish or erect safety devices such as scaffolding, hoists, ladders, and other equipment to ensure proper protection for workers exposed to elevation risks. The statute is designed to impose absolute liability when a failure to provide such devices results in injury.
** W. and A.C. moved for summary judgment, arguing that the duct did not require securing and that R. was the sole proximate cause of her injuries. The Kings County Supreme Court denied their motion, and the AD2 affirmed.
The court found that the defendants failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact. It remained unclear whether the duct required securing for the purposes of the work and whether its fall was due to the absence or inadequacy of a safety device as contemplated by the statute. The defendants’ expert affidavit was deemed insufficient to establish that no safety device was necessary.
The court also rejected the argument that R. was solely responsible for her injuries. To succeed on that defense, the defendants needed to show that R. had access to appropriate safety devices, knew she was expected to use them, and unreasonably chose not to. There was no evidence that such devices were available or that R. declined to use them. Furthermore, the court clarified that an instruction to avoid a certain area does not qualify as a safety device under Labor Law § 240(1).
This decision reinforces the broad protective scope of Labor Law § 240(1), especially in demolition contexts where falling objects pose serious risks. It also highlights the high burden defendants face when seeking summary judgment, particularly when factual disputes remain about safety measures and the circumstances of the injury.
That lady wasn't clumsy, the building was just aggressive ....
# # #
DECISION