Toss Me A Lifeline

Supreme Court, Kings County Holds Failure to Provide Lifeline to Plaintiff in Fall From Height is Prima Facie Evidence of Summary Judgment

In a recent decision, the Supreme Court, Kings County granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as to his Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action.

Procedural Posture & Facts:

In Rivera v. Bedford Cts. Local Dev. Corp., 2025 NY Slip Op 30394(U), plaintiff alleged that he was injured while he was walking on a scaffold when unsecured planks shifted and moved, causing him to fall.? Plaintiff was wearing a harness and a 6-foot lanyard at the time of the accident.?

Plaintiff argues that because he fell from a heigh, the owner and general contractor are liable under Labor Law § 240(1).? Plaintiff also argues that failure to provide him with a proper fall arrest system constitutes a prima facie violation of Labor Law § 241(6), predicated on a violation of Industrial Code § 23-1.16(b).?

In opposition, defendants argue plaintiff was provided with a harness and lanyard, as well as anchor points to attach to his lanyard.? Since plaintiff chose to walk across the scaffold detached from any anchor point, defendants maintain that plaintiff is the sole proximate cause of the accident.

The Supreme Court, Kings County ultimately agreed with plaintiff, noting that it is uncontested that plaintiff was subject to an elevation risk, and that the defendants conceded that although plaintiff was provided with a harness and lanyard, there were not anchor points in the area where plaintiff’s incident occurred.? Plaintiff cannot be said to be a recalcitrant worker, entitling him to summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action.?

As to plaintiff’s Labor Law § 241(6) cause of action, the Court granted this branch of plaintiff’s motion because plaintiff established that the accident was proximately caused by a violation of a sufficiently-specific industrial code section.? Industrial Code § 23-1.16(b) required that a worker using a harness be provided with a secure location to tie off and that the attachments shall be arranged so that a worker cannot fall more than five (5) feet.? Plaintiff met his prima facie burden on summary judgment as to the § 241(6) cause of action as predicated on a violation of § 23-1.16 by establishing that plaintiff was not provided with a place to tie off or with a proper lifeline.?

Commentary:

Here it is undisputed that plaintiff was subject to an elevation-related risk in that he fell from scaffolding.? The § 240(1) violation comes from the defendants failure to provide plaintiff with a place to tie off where the subject incident occurred, and this carries over into the § 241(6) violation as well.? Interestingly, the Court holds that plaintiff was not given a proper lifeline, though he was provided a six (6) foot lanyard.? It’s plausible that because Industrial Code § 23-1.16(b) mandates a worker cannot fall more than five (5) feet, the lanyard was insufficient.

Links:

The Rivera decision can be found here.

Check out additional News & Insights from McCormick & Priore, P.C. here.

For additional information, contact Phil Priore and/or Michael J. Shields, Esq.

This article was prepared by McCormick & Priore, P.C. to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers.? This publication is in no way intended to provide legal advice or to create an attorney-client relationship.? All Rights Reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of McCormick & Priore, P.C.