A New York appellate court has modified a previous ruling in the case of Delisle v. FBBT/US Props., LLC, granting summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) for a construction worker who was injured on the job. The ruling, issued on June 5, 2026, affects not only the parties involved but also sets a precedent for future construction injury cases in New York.
The case originated from an incident involving Scott A. Delisle, a construction worker who suffered an injury while working on a project for FBBT/US Properties, LLC. The court's decision highlights the responsibilities of employers and contractors under New York's Labor Law, particularly regarding worker safety.
Delisle was performing construction work on a site owned by FBBT and leased to CSL Plasma Inc. The general contractor for the project was Barker Contracting, Inc. During the work, Delisle used an A-frame ladder that had been modified by a CSL employee, who duct-taped socks to the ladder's feet to prevent scuffing on newly-installed tile floors. This modification allegedly caused the ladder to shift, leading to Delisle's fall and subsequent injury.
Delisle filed a lawsuit against FBBT, CSL, and Barker, claiming damages for his injuries under Labor Law § 240 (1) and common-law negligence. He sought partial summary judgment on the issue of liability, asserting that the ladder's modification constituted a violation of the law. The defendants, CSL and Barker, countered with a cross-motion for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint, arguing that Delisle was the sole proximate cause of his injury.
The case reached the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York after the Supreme Court in Erie County denied Delisle's motion for summary judgment and also denied part of the defendants' cross-motion. Delisle appealed the decision, while CSL and Barker cross-appealed.
The court ruled in favor of Delisle, modifying the previous order to grant his motion for summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). The judges included Lindley, Bannister, Greenwood, Nowak, and Hannah. In the opinion, the court stated, "the statute was violated and that the violation proximately caused his injury." This ruling emphasized that when a ladder is provided as a safety device, it must be secure and stable. The court noted that the failure to properly secure the ladder constituted a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1).
The ruling clarified that the defendants did not raise a triable issue of fact regarding whether Delisle was the sole proximate cause of the accident. The court explained that the elements of a sole proximate cause defense require that the plaintiff had adequate safety devices available, knew they were available, chose not to use them for no good reason, and would not have been injured had they used the available safety devices. In this case, the court found that Delisle's testimony about being instructed to use the modified ladder by a CSL employee was unrebutted.
As a result of this ruling, Delisle's claim under Labor Law § 240 (1) is now recognized as valid, which could have significant implications for similar cases in the future. The decision reinforces the responsibility of contractors and property owners to ensure that safety equipment is not only provided but also used correctly and safely.
Going forward, this ruling may influence how construction companies approach worker safety and the use of equipment on job sites. It serves as a reminder that modifications to safety equipment can lead to liability if they compromise worker safety. The case underscores the importance of adhering to safety regulations and the potential consequences of negligence in construction environments.
As for what’s next, the defendants may consider appealing the decision to a higher court, although details about any potential appeal were not provided in the court filing. There are no related cases pending that were mentioned in the opinion.