New York Law Review

Groves v. Land’s End Housing Co., 80 N.Y.2d 978 (1992): Prematurity of Summary Judgment in Labor Law § 240(1) Cases

Published by

The New York Law Review

in

Groves v. Land’s End Housing Co., 80 N.Y.2d 978 (1992)

Summary judgment may be premature in Labor Law § 240(1) cases if outstanding discovery exists, especially regarding the use and existence of safety devices, and the plaintiff’s version of the accident may not support a finding that the statute was violated.

Summary

In this Labor Law § 240(1) action, the plaintiffs sought partial summary judgment on liability against the site owner and general contractor. The Appellate Division denied the motion as premature due to outstanding discovery, specifically the defendants’ need to depose eyewitnesses and other witnesses regarding safety devices. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the denial of summary judgment was proper because the defendants asserted the need for more discovery and the discovery timetables had not expired. The Court also noted that the plaintiff’s initial account of the accident may not support a violation of Labor Law § 240(1).

Facts

The plaintiffs, laborers, brought an action under Labor Law § 240(1) against the site owner and general contractor for injuries sustained during work. The specific details of the accident were initially unclear, with varying versions presented by the plaintiffs. The defendants asserted that they needed to depose witnesses regarding the use and existence of safety devices at the work site.

Procedural History

The plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability. The Appellate Division denied the motion, deeming it premature due to outstanding discovery sought by the defendants, citing CPLR 3212(f). The Appellate Division also relied on a prior case, Yaeger v. New York Tel. Co., suggesting that summary judgment was improper because not every version of the accident involved work performed at heights. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.

Issue(s)

  1. Whether the Appellate Division erred in denying the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment as premature due to outstanding discovery.
  2. Whether summary judgment was inappropriate because the plaintiff’s initial account of the accident, as set forth in the complaint, may not support a finding that Labor Law § 240(1) was violated.

Holding

  1. Yes, the Appellate Division did not err because the defendants asserted the need for more discovery to depose witnesses regarding safety devices, and the discovery timetables had not yet expired.
  2. Yes, summary judgment was also inappropriate because the plaintiff’s initial account of the accident may not support a finding that Labor Law § 240(1) was violated.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s decision based on two grounds. First, the defendants had asserted in their affidavits that they needed more discovery time to depose witnesses regarding the use and existence of safety devices. Given the outstanding discovery and the fact that the discovery timetables had not yet expired, the Court found no error in the Appellate Division’s disposition. Second, the Court addressed the Appellate Division’s reliance on Yaeger v. New York Tel. Co., clarifying that Labor Law § 240(1) applies not simply to work performed at heights but to work involving risks related to differences in elevation, as established in Rocovich v. Consolidated Edison Co. While the Court acknowledged that Yaeger did not correctly state the law, it upheld the denial of summary judgment because the plaintiff’s initial account of the accident might not support a finding that the statute was violated. The Court quoted the Appellate Division, stating that “plaintiff[ ] [laborer’s] account of the accident as set forth in the complaint may not support a finding that this statute was violated.”

More ARTICLES