Background
Michael Riley was working on a construction project at Memorial Sloan Kettering during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. He used a permanent staircase to reach his work area and fell where stair treads were worn or missing. Another staircase existed, but it ran through an area used by hospital patients and Riley had been instructed not to use it.
Riley sued under Labor Law § 240(1), New York’s Scaffold Law, as well as Labor Law §§ 200 and 241(6) and common-law negligence. Supreme Court dismissed the § 240(1) claim and denied Riley summary judgment, reasoning in part that the staircase was permanent and was being used as a passageway rather than as the location of his assigned work. Indemnification claims also remained between construction manager JGN and electrical subcontractor ADCO.
The Court’s Holding
The First Department modified and granted Riley summary judgment on § 240(1) liability. It reiterated that permanent staircases are not categorically outside the Scaffold Law. A staircase may function as an elevation-related safety device when it is the sole practical means of reaching the work area. The court refused to treat the patient-area route as a genuine alternative because Riley was instructed not to use it during the pandemic and it presented greater risk in context.
The defective treads therefore implicated the statute’s nondelegable elevation-safety duty. Coverage did not depend on Riley having been assigned to perform work on the stairs themselves. The panel also conditionally awarded JGN contractual indemnification from ADCO because Riley’s claims arose from ADCO’s work, subject to resolution of whether JGN’s own negligence contributed to the accident. Other § 241(6), § 200, and negligence rulings remained in place.
Key Takeaways
- A permanent staircase can qualify as a Labor Law § 240(1) safety device when it is the only viable access route to an elevated work area.
- Courts assess practical availability, not merely physical existence, when deciding whether another route defeats sole-access treatment.
- Contractual indemnification may be granted conditionally while negligence claims against the indemnitee remain unresolved.
Why It Matters
Riley is significant for New York contractors, property owners, hospitals, insurers, and the plaintiffs’ bar because staircase cases often turn on characterization. Calling a structure permanent or a passageway does not end the § 240(1) inquiry. Site instructions, route restrictions, floor access, and the condition of the stairs may place an accident within the statute.
Project teams should document safe authorized access routes and repair missing or worn treads promptly. Litigators should investigate not only whether another staircase existed, but whether workers were permitted and reasonably able to use it. The indemnification ruling also underscores the need to align subcontract language with the work that could give rise to claims, while recognizing that an indemnitee’s own negligence may limit final recovery.