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.
Burgos Caba v. 587-91 Third Owner, LLC
Citation: 2023 NY Slip Op 00924Docket: Index No. 160171/18 595211/19 Appeal No. 17345 Case No. 2022-01557
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; February 15, 2023; New York; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
In the case of **Burgos Caba v 587-91 Third Owner, LLC**, decided on February 16, 2023, the Appellate Division, First Department, upheld the Supreme Court's decision granting Christian Burgos Caba's motion for summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action. The plaintiff was injured while transporting a heavy spray paint machine down a stairway, as instructed by his foreman, after waiting for an elevator that was unavailable. The foreman directed him to carry the machine down the stairs, where Caba, unable to see the steps while holding the machine, fell. The court found that the defendants, 587-91 Third Owner, LLC, and CM Associates Construction Management, LLC, failed to provide an adequate safety device as required for work on an elevated platform (the stairway). This failure was directly linked to Caba's injury, establishing liability under Labor Law § 240(1). The court affirmed the denial of the defendants' request for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint and their claim for contractual indemnification against the third-party defendant, OV Painting and Supply, Inc., deeming it premature due to unresolved factual issues regarding the defendants' negligence and control over the worksite. The court noted that the plaintiff's other claims under Labor Law § 241(6) and § 200 were rendered academic due to the decision on the § 240(1) claim. The ruling took into consideration the failure of the defendants to provide necessary safety measures, affirming that issues of fact remained regarding their oversight of the work being performed. The decision was entered without costs.