Summary
In Quattrocchi, we articulated for the first time that liability is not limited to cases in which the falling object was in the process of being hoisted or secured (see 11 N.Y.3d at 759, 866 N.Y.S.2d 592, 896 N.E.2d 75). Next, in Runner, the Court had occasion to apply section 240(1) to novel factual circumstances that did not involve a falling worker or falling object (see 13 N.Y.3d at 605, 895 N.Y.S.2d 279, 922 N.E.2d 865).
Summary of this case from Wilinski v. 334 East 92nd Hous. Dev. Fund Corp.Opinion
No. 195 SSM 26.
Decided September 9, 2008.
APPEAL, by permission of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, from an order of that Court, entered October 9, 2007. The Appellate Division modified, on the law, an order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Beeler, J.), which had denied the motions of third-party defendant United Airconditioning Corp. and third-party plaintiff F.J. Sciame Construction Co., Inc. for summary judgment and granted partial summary judgment to plaintiff on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. The modification consisted of denying partial summary judgment on plaintiffs Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. The Appellate Division affirmed the order as modified. The following question was certified by the Appellate Division: "Was the order of this Court, which modified the order of the Supreme Court, New York County, properly made?"
Quattrocchi v F.J. Sciame Constr. Corp., 44 AD3d 377, affirmed.
Smith Mazure Director Wilkins Young Yagerman, PC, New York City ( Joel M. Simon of counsel), for third-party appellant.
Sacks and Sacks LLP, New York City ( Scott N. Singer of counsel), for respondent.
Quirk and Bakalor, PC, New York City ( Dara L. Rosenbaum), for Complete Construction Consortium, Inc., third-party respondent.
Nicoletti Hornig Sweeney, New York City ( Barbara A. Sheehan of counsel), for F.J. Sciame Construction Co., Inc., for third-party respondent.
Before: Chief Judge KAYE and Judges CIPARICK, GRAFFEO, READ, SMITH, PIGOTT and JONES.
OPINION OF THE COURT
The Appellate Division order should be affirmed, with costs, and the certified question answered in the affirmative.
As our holding in Outar v City of New York indicates, "falling object" liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) is not limited to cases in which the falling object is in the process of being hoisted or secured ( 5 NY3d 731, affg 11 AD3d 593 [2d Dept 2004]). In this case, plaintiff alleges that he was struck by falling planks that had been placed over open doors as a makeshift shelf to facilitate the installation of an air conditioner above a doorway. We agree with the Appellate Division majority that triable questions of fact preclude summary judgment on plaintiffs Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, including whether the planks were adequately secured in light of the purposes of the plank assembly and whether plaintiff caused the accident by jostling the doors after disregarding a warning not to enter the doorway area. Accordingly, the Appellate Division properly modified Supreme Court's order to the extent of denying partial summary judgment on plaintiffs Labor Law § 240 (1) claim.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals ( 22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, etc.