In C. v. Sutton Place S. C., the First Department affirmed the Supreme Court’s order granting the plaintiff partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim and denying the defendants’ cross‑motion for dismissal. The decision reinforces the principle that § 240(1) applies whenever a worker is exposed to elevation‑related risks without adequate safety devices, even when the work occurs on a permanent structure such as a stairway.
The plaintiff, C., was performing construction work on the seventh floor of a building owned by Sutton Place S. C., with C. Construction serving as general contractor. Following his foreman’s instructions, he carried a 70–75‑pound sheetrock board—large, unwieldy, and requiring both hands—down a service stairway. Because he needed both hands to control the board, he was unable to use the handrail. While descending, he fell and sustained injuries.
The First Department held that the plaintiff established entitlement to judgment as a matter of law under Labor Law § 240(1). The court emphasized that defendants were required to provide an adequate safety device for the task of transporting the sheetrock down the stairs, and the absence of such a device was the direct cause of the accident. Whether the plaintiff slipped, tripped, mis‑stepped, or simply lost his balance was immaterial; the injury resulted from the force of gravity acting on a worker positioned on an elevated work platform.
The defendants argued that the stairway’s status as a permanent structure removed it from the statute’s scope. The court rejected that contention, reiterating that a permanent stairway can constitute an elevated work platform when it is the required means of access for performing the assigned task. Here, the stairway was the only route to the service elevator used to transport sheetrock to the seventh floor, bringing the accident squarely within § 240(1).
Because the plaintiff established a prima facie violation and the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact, summary judgment in the plaintiff’s favor was appropriate. For the same reasons, the defendants’ motion to dismiss the § 240(1) claim was properly denied.
The court’s determination rendered the plaintiff’s remaining claims under Labor Law §§ 241(6) and 200 academic, consistent with prior precedent.
(Gravity never takes a day off.)
# # #
DECISION