A New York appellate court has upheld a ruling that grants summary judgment to a worker injured while operating a crane, emphasizing the importance of safety regulations in construction. The decision affects workers in similar situations, reinforcing protections under Labor Law § 240(1), which mandates safety measures to prevent accidents on job sites.
The case, Andrade v. 1203 E N.Y. Ave Owner, LLC, was decided on May 21, 2026, by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York. The court's ruling affirms an earlier decision made by a lower court, which found that the defendants, the owners of the construction site, were liable for the injuries sustained by Victor Andrade, the plaintiff.
Background
Victor Andrade, the plaintiff in this case, was injured while working at a construction site managed by 1203 E N.Y. Ave Owner, LLC, among other defendants. The incident occurred when Andrade was using a manual crane, known as a roustabout, to hoist a heavy column weighing approximately 1,000 pounds. During the process, the column fell, causing Andrade to be launched into the air and struck by either the crane or the falling column.
The dispute arose when Andrade filed a lawsuit against the defendants, claiming they violated Labor Law § 240(1), which is designed to protect construction workers from accidents related to the improper hoisting of objects. The defendants appealed a lower court's decision that granted Andrade's motion for summary judgment, arguing that they had not been given sufficient opportunity to conduct depositions of Andrade's coworkers.
The Ruling
The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the lower court's ruling, stating that Andrade's motion for summary judgment was not premature. The court noted that the defendants' argument regarding depositions was raised too late in the process, as they had not previously claimed this in the lower court. The court emphasized that the defendants failed to provide evidence that further discovery could lead to a different outcome.
The court ruled, "Even if it were true that plaintiff was directed not to stand on the legs of the roustabout, his decision to do so would at most amount to comparative negligence, which is not a defense to a Labor Law § 240(1) claim."
The judges involved in the ruling included Moulton, J.P., González, O'Neill Levy, Chan, and Hagler. The court highlighted that the record clearly established a violation of Labor Law § 240(1) due to the unsafe conditions under which Andrade was working. The ruling pointed out that the specific object causing Andrade's injury did not need to be identified for him to win the case.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for construction workers and employers in New York. It reinforces the legal protections afforded to workers under Labor Law § 240(1), which mandates that employers ensure safe working conditions, especially when heavy objects are involved. The decision clarifies that even if a worker may have acted in a way that contributed to their injury, it does not absolve employers of their responsibility to provide a safe working environment.
The court's decision also sets a precedent for future cases involving similar circumstances, indicating that workers are entitled to protections regardless of their actions if those actions do not constitute the sole cause of their injuries. This ruling may encourage more workers to come forward with claims when they believe their safety has been compromised on the job.
What's Next
Details were not available in the court filing regarding whether the defendants plan to appeal this decision to a higher court. However, the ruling stands as a strong affirmation of worker safety rights under New York's labor laws.