Background
Jimmy Mejia Gomez, a construction worker, fell from an eight-foot A-frame ladder while installing sheetrock at a property owned by Brookfield Properties One WFC Co., LLC in New York City. Brookfield was the property owner; Structure Tone, LLC and Tulla Construction Corp. were also named as defendants, with Tulla as Brookfield’s subcontractor and Gomez’s employer. Gomez moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240(1) — New York’s Scaffold Law, which imposes absolute liability on owners and general contractors for gravity-related injuries when adequate safety devices are not provided.
Supreme Court denied the motion with leave to renew after further discovery, finding the motion premature. Gomez appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The First Department reversed and granted summary judgment in Gomez’s favor on the § 240(1) claim. Gomez established prima facie entitlement through his own testimony that the ladder moved from side to side and caused him to fall — a classic elevation-related injury under the Scaffold Law. The court cited recent precedent confirming that testimony about a shifting ladder is sufficient to establish a § 240(1) violation.
Brookfield attempted to defeat the motion by pointing to two post-accident reports — a medical report and an accident investigation report — each containing hearsay statements attributed to Gomez suggesting he “lost his balance,” rather than that the ladder moved. The court found these statements insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. Even accepting the hearsay as admissible, “losing his balance” is not necessarily inconsistent with the ladder shifting; the two accounts can be reconciled. The court also rejected the argument that the motion was premature due to unfinished discovery, finding no nonspeculative basis to believe further discovery would yield evidence relevant to the § 240(1) claim. Tulla’s argument that the motion papers were not properly before the court was also rejected because all filings were submitted electronically and therefore available to all parties.
Key Takeaways
- A worker’s testimony that a ladder moved laterally while he was on it is sufficient prima facie evidence of a Labor Law § 240(1) violation; the burden then shifts to the owner and contractor to raise a genuine triable issue.
- Post-accident hearsay statements attributing a fall to the worker “losing his balance” do not necessarily contradict testimony that the ladder shifted — when the two accounts are reconcilable, summary judgment for the plaintiff stands.
- A motion for summary judgment on a § 240(1) liability issue is not automatically premature just because discovery is ongoing; courts require a nonspeculative articulation of what further discovery might reveal before granting a continuance.
Why It Matters
Labor Law § 240(1) — the Scaffold Law — remains one of the most powerful tools available to injured construction workers in New York. This decision continues a line of First Department authority strongly favoring workers where ladder movement causes a fall, and it reinforces the principle that boilerplate post-accident report language is unlikely to overcome clear plaintiff testimony about equipment failure. For defense counsel and owners: the best defense against § 240(1) claims remains ensuring that ladders are properly footed, secured, or stabilized — after a worker falls from a shifting ladder, the path to defeating summary judgment is narrow. For plaintiffs’ counsel: promptly document the client’s account of ladder movement before any post-accident reports are written, as those reports are the most common ammunition used to create a triable issue.