Borelli v. JB IV, LLC

209 A.D.3d 1121

177 N.Y.S.3d 180

Patrick K. BORELLI et al., Respondents—Appellants,

v.JB IV, LLC, et al., Appellants—Respondents.

533416, 533475

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

Calendar Date: September 8, 2022

Decided and Entered: October 20, 2022

Rupp Baase Pfalzgraf Cunningham LLC, Buffalo (Cory J. Weber of counsel), for appellants-respondents.

DeFranciso & Falgiatano, LLP, East Syracuse (Jean Marie Westlake of counsel), for respondents-appellants.

Before: Lynch, J.P., Aarons, Reynolds Fitzgerald, Fisher and McShan, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Fisher, J.

(1) Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Oliver N. Blaise III, J.), entered May 19, 2021 in Broome County, which, among other things, partially denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and (2) cross appeals from an amended order of said court, entered June 9, 2021 in Broome County, which partially denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiffs’ cross motion for summary judgment.

Plaintiff Patrick K. Borelli was performing exterior painting work at the premises owned by defendant JB IV, LLC and leased to defendant Champz of Binghamton, LLC d/b/a Peterson's Tavern. The work required Borelli to climb a ladder from which he subsequently fell, causing personal injuries. Borelli and his wife, derivatively, commenced this action alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1) and 241(6), and asserting a claim for loss of consortium. Following joinder of issue, defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and plaintiffs cross-moved for summary judgment. Supreme Court ultimately issued an amended order that partially granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment by dismissing two regulatory violations within plaintiffs’ Labor Law § 241(6) claim, but otherwise denied both parties’ respective motions. These cross appeals ensued.¹

Supreme Court did not err in denying the branch of defendants’ motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the Labor Law § 200 claim. " Labor Law § 200 is a codification of the common-law duty imposed upon an owner or general contractor to provide construction site workers with a safe place to work" ( Hawver v. Steele, 204 A.D.3d 1125, 1126, 166 N.Y.S.3d 369 [3d Dept. 2022] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]). To prevail on their motion for summary judgment, "[d]efendants were ... required to establish on a prima facie basis that they did not create the dangerous condition that caused [Borelli's] injury, and did not have actual or constructive notice of the condition" ( Stewart v. ALCOA, Inc., 184 A.D.3d 1057, 1058, 126 N.Y.S.3d 233 [3d Dept. 2020] ). Here, Borelli and the tavern manager each blame the other for retrieving the ladder and placing it upside down before Borelli began using it. Defendants also claim that one of their employees tied off the top of the ladder on a second-floor window before Borelli started painting. Borelli disputes that allegation for several reasons, including his assertion that the tavern manager was initially holding the bottom of the ladder for him and walked away without warning. When viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, defendants did not eliminate all questions of fact regarding whether they created the allegedly dangerous condition of the ladder and had no notice of this condition (see Eherts v. Shoprite Supermarkets, Inc., 199 A.D.3d 1270, 1273, 158 N.Y.S.3d 343 [3d Dept. 2021] ; Baker v. Harrison, 180 A.D.3d 1210, 1213, 120 N.Y.S.3d 191 [3d Dept. 2020] ).

Similarly, Supreme Court properly denied the branches of the motion and cross motion related to plaintiffs’ Labor Law § 240(1) claim. "In order to hold a property owner liable under Labor Law § 240(1), ‘the owner must breach the statutory duty thereunder to provide a worker with adequate safety devices, and this breach must proximately cause the worker's injuries. These prerequisites do not exist if adequate safety devices are available at the job site, but the worker either does not use or misuses them’ " ( Nalepa v. South Hill Bus. Campus, LLC, 123 A.D.3d 1190, 1191, 998 N.Y.S.2d 245 [3d Dept. 2014] [ellipses and brackets omitted], lv denied 25 N.Y.3d 909, 2015 WL 3555546 [2015], quoting Robinson v. East Med. Ctr., LP, 6 N.Y.3d 550, 554, 814 N.Y.S.2d 589, 847 N.E.2d 1162 [2006] ). Although it is undisputed that Borelli was subjected to an elevation-related hazard to which the statute applies (see Markou v. Sano–Rubin Constr. Co., Inc., 182 A.D.3d 674, 675, 122 N.Y.S.3d 386 [3d Dept. 2020] ), questions of fact exist as to whether this statute was violated because the parties offer competing information as to who retrieved and set up the ladder that Borelli was using or misusing upside down (see Albert v. Williams Lubricants, Inc., 35 A.D.3d 1115, 1117, 828 N.Y.S.2d 593 [3d Dept. 2006] ; see also Hendryx v. Payne, 103 A.D.3d 1163, 1165, 958 N.Y.S.2d 842 [4th Dept. 2013], lv denied 22 N.Y.3d 852, 2013 WL 5614415 [2013] ; Marsh v. Marsh, 45 A.D.3d 1100, 1101, 845 N.Y.S.2d 551 [3d Dept. 2007] ), and whether ropes were provided and utilized to secure the ladder into place (see Wood v. Baker Bros. Excavating, 205 A.D.3d 1113, 1114, 168 N.Y.S.3d 158 [3d Dept. 2022] ; Beardslee v. Cornell Univ., 72 A.D.3d 1371, 1372, 899 N.Y.S.2d 444 [3d Dept. 2010] ; Deshields v. Carey, 69 A.D.3d 1191, 1193, 897 N.Y.S.2d 254 [3d Dept. 2010] ). Moreover, even if it was established that defendants secured the ladder with rope, "[w]here an employee has been provided with an elevation-related safety device, it is usually a question of fact as to whether the device provided proper protection" ( Silvia v. Bow Tie Partners, LLC, 77 A.D.3d 1143, 1144, 909 N.Y.S.2d 202 [3d Dept. 2010] ; see Cutaia v. Board of Mgrs. of the 160/170 Varick St. Condominium, 38 N.Y.3d 1037, 1039, 169 N.Y.S.3d 902, 190 N.E.3d 28 [2022] ; Ortman v. Logsdon, 121 A.D.3d 1388, 1390, 995 N.Y.S.2d 358 [3d Dept. 2014] ).

Finally, Supreme Court properly partially denied the branch of defendants’ summary judgment motion as it relates to plaintiffs’ Labor Law § 241(6) claim. " Labor Law § 241(6) imposes a nondelegable duty upon owners, contractors and their agents to provide adequate protection and safety for workers and, to establish a claim under this section, a plaintiff must allege that the defendants violated a rule or regulation promulgated by the Commissioner of Labor that sets forth a specific standard of conduct" ( Edwards v. State Univ. Constr. Fund, 196 A.D.3d 778, 784, 151 N.Y.S.3d 464 [3d Dept. 2021] [internal quotations marks, brackets and citations omitted]). Here, the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 241(6) was predicated on a regulation requiring that a ladder be maintained in good condition and free of "a broken...