Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Rodriguez v. BCRE 230 Riverdale, LLC
Citations: 91 A.D.3d 933; 938 N.Y.2d 146
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; January 30, 2012; New York; State Appellate Court
The plaintiff sustained injuries while performing demolition work for a renovation project at a building owned by BCRE 230 Riverdale, LLC. He claimed that while pushing a dumpster filled with debris, one of its wheels got stuck in a hole in the alley behind the building. As the dumpster moved sideways and the plaintiff attempted to stabilize it, he tripped and fell into the hole, resulting in his injuries. The hole was previously cut into the concrete to install a ramp to the building's basement, and the plaintiff noted that no work was being done on that area at the time of the incident. The plaintiff initiated a lawsuit against multiple parties, including BCRE, citing common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law sections 200 and 241(6). In response, BCRE and its managing agent, R.A. Cohen Associates, sought summary judgment to dismiss the claims against them. The court granted the motion for R.A. Cohen but denied it for BCRE. Labor Law section 200 imposes a duty on property owners and contractors to ensure a safe working environment. The court distinguished between injuries from defective premises conditions and those arising from the manner of work performed, concluding that the plaintiff's injury was due to a defective condition. BCRE was required to demonstrate that it did not create the dangerous condition and had no notice of it. The court found that BCRE failed to meet this burden, leading to the denial of the motion to dismiss the negligence and Labor Law 200 claims. Additionally, the court upheld the denial of BCRE's motion regarding the Labor Law 241(6) claim based on 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(e)(1), as BCRE did not prove there was no triable issue of fact about whether the plaintiff tripped in a passageway and if the defect was integral to the construction. However, the court erred by denying BCRE's motion to dismiss the claim under 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(e)(2), as BCRE successfully established that the defect did not constitute a hazard under that regulation, and the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue in opposition. The ruling included concurring opinions from Justices Rivera, Eng, Lott, and Sgroi.