Background
Marcin Rolka was working for Ladi Construction, a subcontractor hired by Neelam Construction Corporation to perform waterproofing, demolition, and debris removal at Long Island City High School in Queens. In April 2022, Rolka was standing on a scaffold, bent over picking up debris, when an object struck him in the back of the head. The object fell from another scaffold directly above, where other demolition workers were stationed. Rolka did not see the object and could not identify what it was or where precisely it originated.
Rolka sued the defendants asserting, among other claims, a violation of Labor Law § 240(1)—New York’s Scaffold Law—which imposes absolute, nondelegable liability on owners and general contractors for gravity-related injuries at construction sites. Rolka moved for summary judgment on liability under § 240(1), and the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kerrigan, J.) granted the motion. Neelam appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Appellate Division, Second Department reversed. Under Labor Law § 240(1), the statute covers “falling object” cases, but it does not extend to every object that falls at a construction site. The plaintiff must show (1) the existence of a hazard contemplated by the statute—one arising from a physically significant elevation differential—and (2) that the object fell because of the absence or inadequacy of a safety device enumerated in the statute. Critically, a falling object claim also requires showing that the object, at the time it fell, “either was being hoisted or secured, or required securing for the purposes of the undertaking.”
Here, Rolka’s own submissions were insufficient. He did not know what struck him or where the object came from. Because he could not identify the object or establish its source, he could not demonstrate that the falling item was being hoisted or secured, that it required securing, or that a safety device of the kind enumerated in § 240(1) would have prevented its fall. The existence of triable issues of fact on these threshold questions defeated summary judgment—and because the plaintiff failed to carry his prima facie burden, the court did not even reach the sufficiency of the defendants’ opposition.
Key Takeaways
- Scaffold Law coverage of falling-object injuries is not automatic. A plaintiff must identify the object, establish that it was being hoisted or secured (or required securing) at the time of the fall, and show that a § 240(1) safety device would have prevented the injury.
- Where a plaintiff cannot identify what struck him or where it came from, summary judgment on § 240(1) liability will be denied—triable issues of fact remain as to whether the fall was an elevation-related gravity risk covered by the statute.
- The rule that summary judgment is defeated when a plaintiff fails to establish a prima facie case applies equally in Labor Law § 240(1) cases: the court need not examine the defense papers at all if the plaintiff’s own submissions reveal gaps in proof.
- Defendants in scaffold law falling-object cases should focus at the summary judgment stage on the plaintiff’s ability to identify the object and establish it required securing—gaps in that foundation can independently defeat the motion without any affirmative defense showing.
Why It Matters
Rolka is a useful counterweight to the broad plaintiff-friendly reputation of New York’s Scaffold Law. The decision reaffirms that § 240(1) liability—though absolute when established—has meaningful threshold requirements in falling-object cases. A worker injured by an unknown object falling from an upper work area does not automatically have a § 240(1) claim; the source, nature, and circumstances of the fall must be established sufficiently to show the statute applies.
For construction defendants and their insurers, Rolka signals that summary judgment discovery should focus on locking down (or exposing weaknesses in) the plaintiff’s identification of the object and its trajectory. Where a plaintiff’s deposition reveals uncertainty about what fell, from where, and why, that evidentiary gap can defeat a § 240(1) summary judgment motion even in a case that superficially looks like a classic falling-object scenario.