Switch to ADA Accessible Theme
Close Menu
Dupée & Monroe, P.C., Attorneys at Law
Complimentary Consultations Available 845-294-8900

Dupée & Monroe Wins Important Decision in New York Appeals Court

A gavel rests on a wooden block, highlighted by sunlight against a backdrop of a construction site, symbolizing law and progress.

Our own Jon C. Dupée recently had a big win in the appellate court reversing a local Supreme Court decision on a significant New York Labor Law construction site accident case we have been working on. Now, our plaintiff, who was injured when a ladder fell and struck him in the head, stands a good chance of securing the compensation he deserves under Labor Law 240(1), aka the Scaffold Law. Read on to learn more about this case and our firm’s relentless pursuit of justice and compensation for our clients. If you or a loved one has been injured in a construction accident in Orange County or the Hudson Valley, contact Dupée & Monroe, P.C., for help from an experienced and dedicated Goshen construction accident lawyer.

Background of the Case

The decision in the case of Brian P. Wright, appellant, v John Pennings, Jr., etc., respondent (Wright v. Pennings) was handed down by the Supreme Court of the State of New York Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department, on December 11, 2024, after having been argued to the court last summer, on May 28, 2024. Jon C. Dupée, Jr. of Dupée & Monroe, P.C., served as counsel for the appellant, who was the plaintiff in a personal injury construction accident case.

In September 2017, our client, Brian Wright, was stuck by an unsecured 20-foot extension ladder that fell and hit him on the head, causing him to sustain serious injuries. A co-worker was using the ladder and had begun to climb it when it slipped and fell, striking Mr. Wright who was on the ground at the time about 15 to 20 feet away performing electrical work. The accident took place at a barn owned by Mr. Pennings.

Mr. Wright’s co-worker had placed the ladder on a rubber mat which was covered in cow manure and hay, leading to the ladder’s slippage when he began to climb it. Our client sued the barn owner for his injuries based on several legal theories tied to New York Labor Law, specifically:

  • Common-law negligence
  • Violation of Labor Law 200
  • Violation of Labor Law 240(1)
  • Violation of Labor Law 241(6)

The plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the issue of section 240(1) liability, while the defendant moved for summary judgment to dismiss the cause of action. On March 16, 2021, the Supreme Court, Orange County, denied the plaintiff’s motion and granted the defendant’s. We appealed.

We argued the appeal to the Supreme Court of New York Appellate Division on May 28, 2024, and a decision was recently issued on December 11, 2024. In that ruling, a unanimous four-judge panel reversed the rulings of the trial court, granting our motion for summary judgment with costs and denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss.

Absolute Liability for Scaffold Law Violations

Labor Law 240(1) is commonly known as the Scaffold Law in New York, but it actually applies to any accident or injury involving gravity or elevation. Injuries from falls or being struck by falling objects are all covered under the law, regardless of whether a scaffold was involved or not.

As the court noted, section 240(1) imposes a nondelegable duty on property owners and general contractors or their agents to provide appropriate safety devices to workers who are subject to elevation-related risks. Owners and contractors are absolutely liable under this law for injuries proximately caused by the failure to do so, meaning is it not necessary to prove negligence or fault on the part of the defendant. In the case of ladder falls or other ladder accidents, it is enough to show that the ladder was inadequately secured and that the failure to properly secure it was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s injuries.

In this case, our client demonstrated that an unsecured ladder caused it to fall and strike the plaintiff on the head. This showing was sufficient to make a prima facie case entitling him to judgment as a matter of law. In summary judgment, the judge decides the matter, and it is not necessary to prove the issue of liability to a jury. After receiving a favorable summary judgment on liability, the only thing left to prove is how much the defendant owes the plaintiff. The next step, therefore, is to proceed to court for a trial on the issue of damages. In practice, however, cases often settle without going to trial once liability has been established as a matter of law.

Other Favorable Appellate Rulings Issued

In addition to the favorable 240(1) ruling, our client was further vindicated at the appellate level. First, the court held that the trial court also erred in dismissing the 241(6) cause of action. This law imposes a nondelegable duty of reasonable care on owners and contractors to provide reasonable and adequate protection and safety to persons employed in or lawfully frequenting all areas in which construction, excavation or demolition work is being performed. To be successful on a 241(6) claim, the plaintiff must allege a violation of a concrete specification promulgated in the Industrial Code. We did exactly that here, citing 12 NYCRR 23-1.21(b)(4)(ii)), which states, “[a]ll ladder footings shall be firm. Slippery surfaces and insecure objects such as bricks and boxes shall not be used as ladder footings.” The rubber mat covered in cow manure and hay was indeed a slippery surface, a fact which the court held was not adequately refuted by the defendant.

In addition, the appeals court opined that the trial court should not have dismissed the claims brought under common law negligence and Labor Law 200. Owners and employers have a duty at common law to provide employees with a safe place to work, and this common-law duty has been codified into statute through section 200. A necessary element in a negligence claim of this type is to prove the defendant either created the hazardous condition or had actual or constructive notice of it. Constructive notice exists when the hazard was visible and apparent and existed for a sufficient length of time before the accident occurred such that it could have been discovered and corrected. The defendant in this case only offered conclusory statements that he did not have actual or constructive notice of the slippery condition, which the appellate court did not find convincing.

Contact Dupée & Monroe, P.C. in Goshen

Although the appeals court declined to search the record and award the plaintiff summary judgment on the issue of liability regarding sections 241(6) and 200 causes of action, the ruling of liability on the 240(1) claim may be enough to carry the day for our client. With liability established on this critical issue, the case is destined to move to trial on the issue of damages if it doesn’t settle beforehand. We look forward to concluding this case successfully for our client so that he gets the financial support and justice he needs and deserves to move beyond this tragedy.

If you or a loved one were injured in a construction accident or other personal injury caused by another’s negligence in Orange County or the Hudson Valley, contact Dupée & Monroe, P.C., at 845-294-8900 for a free consultation to discuss your situation and find out how we can help.

Facebook Twitter LinkedIn