Summary
In Grigoryan v. 108 Chambers St. Owner, LLC, 204 A.D.3d 534 [1st Dept 2022], a "3-4 foot tall, 300-500+ pound fire pump" fell on plaintiffs leg.
Summary of this case from Khanunov v. Citigroup Tech.Opinion
15765 Index Nos. 158572/17 595470/18, 595569/18 Case No. 2021-01503
04-21-2022
Vitaliy GRIGORYAN et al., Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. 108 CHAMBERS STREET OWNER, LLC, et al., Defendants–Respondents, Rightway Plumbing and Heating, Inc., et al., Defendants. [And Third–Party Actions]
Sullivan Papain Block McGrath Coffinas & Cannavo, New York (Brian J. Shoot of counsel), for appellants. Gallo Vitucci Klar LLP, New York (C. Briggs Johnson of counsel), for respondents.
Sullivan Papain Block McGrath Coffinas & Cannavo, New York (Brian J. Shoot of counsel), for appellants.
Gallo Vitucci Klar LLP, New York (C. Briggs Johnson of counsel), for respondents.
Renwick, J.P., Kapnick, Mazzarelli, Shulman, Pitt, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alexander M. Tisch), entered March 29, 2021, which denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability as against defendants 108 Chambers Street Owner, LLC and Ross & Associates, LLC (defendants) on the Labor Law § 240(1) claim, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted.
Liability under Labor Law § 240(1) arises where a safety device of the kind enumerated in the statute either proved inadequate to shield against injury resulting directly from the application of the force of gravity to a person or object or where no safety device was provided to shield against such injury ( Runner v. New York Stock Exch., Inc., 13 N.Y.3d 599, 604, 895 N.Y.S.2d 279, 922 N.E.2d 865 [2009] ). Here, plaintiff was injured when he and two coworkers were assigned to run conduits along the wall and ceiling of an approximately 8 by 10–foot fire pump room. As they were looking at the wall and ceiling and deciding how to proceed, plaintiff felt a sharp pain in his leg when a 3–to–4 foot tall, 300–500+ pound fire pump, which had been standing upright on the floor, on its narrower end and unsecured, fell on his leg. Where a load positioned on the same level as the injured worker falls a short distance, Labor Law § 240(1) applies if the load, due to its weight, is capable of generating significant force ( Wilinski v. 334 E. 92nd Hous. Dev. Fund Corp., 18 N.Y.3d 1, 10, 935 N.Y.S.2d 551, 959 N.E.2d 488 [2011] ). Here, the fire pump was required to be secured against tipping or falling and the failure to secure it was a violation of Labor Law § 240(1) (see Ali v. Sloan–Kettering Inst. for Cancer Research, 176 A.D.3d 561, 112 N.Y.S.3d 14 [1st Dept. 2019] ; Marrero v. 2075 Holding Co. LLC, 106 A.D.3d 408, 408–409, 964 N.Y.S.2d 144 [1st Dept. 2013] ; McCallister v. 200 Park, L.P., 92 A.D.3d 927, 928–929, 939 N.Y.S.2d 538 [2d Dept. 2012] ; Runner, 13 N.Y.3d at 604, 895 N.Y.S.2d 279, 922 N.E.2d 865 ).
Contrary to defendants’ contentions on appeal, it is irrelevant for purposes of Labor Law § 240(1) whether the object that should have been secured related to plaintiff's own work (see Diaz v. HHC TS Reit LLC, 193 A.D.3d 640, 147 N.Y.S.3d 35 [1st Dept. 2021] ). Similarly unavailing is their unforeseeability argument. The hazard plaintiff faced was that the unsecured fire pump would topple over, which was a foreseeable harm that needed to be protected against (see Jordan v. City of New York, 126 A.D.3d 619, 620, 3 N.Y.S.3d 605 [1st Dept. 2015] ).