A New York appellate court has reversed a lower court's decision that granted summary judgment in favor of a carpenter injured while working on a construction site. The ruling, issued on June 17, 2026, affects the liability of construction companies under Labor Law § 240(1) and could have significant implications for similar cases in the future.
The case, Neto v. Buddies Bro, LLC, involves Dijalma Neto, a carpenter employed by Magellan Concrete Structures. Neto sustained injuries while working on a construction project at a site owned by Buddies Bro, LLC, with Townhouse Builders, Inc. serving as the general contractor. The dispute centers around whether the defendants provided adequate safety measures to protect Neto from elevation-related hazards, as required by New York labor laws.
Neto filed the lawsuit after he fell while using scissor clamps to descend a cement column. He claimed that his fall arrest system engaged, preventing a more serious fall, but he still struck the building's exterior wall and lost consciousness. He alleged that the defendants violated Labor Law § 240(1), which mandates that construction site owners and contractors provide proper safety equipment to protect workers from falls.
The case reached the Appellate Division after the Supreme Court of Kings County granted Neto's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability on March 20, 2024. The lower court found that Neto had established his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, leading to the appeal by Buddies Bro and Townhouse Builders.
The Appellate Division, consisting of Justices Francesca E. Connolly, Valerie Brathwaite Nelson, Barry E. Warhit, and Elena Goldberg Velazquez, overturned the lower court's ruling. The court determined that the plaintiff had not demonstrated that the defendants were liable under Labor Law § 240(1). The court stated, "Although an injured worker's comparative negligence is not a defense to a Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action, where the plaintiff is the sole proximate cause of his or her own injuries, there can be no liability under Labor Law § 240(1)."
The court noted that while Neto had initially shown he was injured due to the defendants' failure to provide adequate safety measures, the defendants successfully raised a triable issue of fact. They argued that Neto had been provided with safety devices, including a six-foot ladder, which he failed to use. The court emphasized that the plaintiff's decision to climb the scissor clamps instead of using the ladder could be seen as contributing to his injuries.
This ruling has important implications for workers' rights and safety on construction sites. It clarifies that while employers have a duty to provide safety equipment, workers also bear some responsibility for their own safety. The decision may influence future cases involving Labor Law § 240(1), as it highlights the necessity for workers to utilize available safety devices to avoid liability for their injuries.
The reversal of the summary judgment means that the case will return to the lower court for further proceedings. This could include a trial where both parties present their evidence and arguments regarding liability and damages. The outcome may set a precedent for how similar cases are handled in the future, particularly in regard to the responsibilities of both employers and employees in maintaining safety on construction sites.
As for what lies ahead, the defendants may pursue additional legal strategies in response to the appellate ruling. It is unclear if either party will seek further appeals in this matter. However, the case serves as a reminder of the complexities involved in construction injury claims and the importance of adhering to safety regulations.