Skip to Main Content
Services Talent Knowledge
Site Search


Our attorneys stay on top of changes in legislation, agency regulations, case law, and industry trends—then craft timely legal alerts to keep clients up to date on legal developments important to their business.

June 7, 2022

Unwitnessed Fall From Ladder Amounts to Mere Speculation of Liability Under Labor Law

The Appellate Division, First Department, in Public Adm’r of Queens County v. 124 Ridge LLC,i  recently reiterated the settled principle that liability under Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) cannot be based on mere speculation and, in those circumstances, those causes of action are properly dismissed.  

In 124 Ridge LLC, the plaintiff’s decedent was completing renovation work in the course of his employment with third-party defendant Casur Maintenance & Management, Inc., when he allegedly fell from an extension ladder and sustained injuries. The decedent passed away from his injuries shortly thereafter, prompting the plaintiff to commence this action for wrongful death.

Upon completion of discovery, it was undisputed that the decedent’s fall was unwitnessed and that no living person had any information as to how the incident occurred. Indeed, the decedent was found lying at the foot of the extension ladder, in a room in which he had been working alone, after several other workers on site heard a loud noise and a scream. 

On these facts, the defendant and the third-party defendant moved for summary judgment, seeking dismissal of the plaintiff’s Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) claims. They also argued, through the submission of photographs and deposition testimony, that the extension ladder was properly secured following the incident and that safety devices, such as harnesses, hardhats, and goggles, were available on site for the decedent’s use. The plaintiff opposed these motions, arguing that the photographs and deposition testimony relied upon were not credible, as the photographs were taken at least two days after the incident and the testimony was taken from a witness who waited nearly two hours before visiting the scene.  

The trial court denied the motions and found a triable issue of fact as to whether the extension ladder had been properly secured at the time of the alleged fall. On appeal, the First Department disagreed and reversed the trial court’s decision. The court reasoned that the defendant and the third-party defendant had established that no one was able to demonstrate the cause of this incident, and there was no direct or circumstantial evidence as to how the incident occurred. Thus, as it was just as likely that the incident was caused by the decedent’s misstep or loss of balance as opposed to a defective or improperly secured ladder, any finding by the trier of fact would necessarily be based on speculation rather than conclusions drawn from the evidence. As a result, dismissal of the plaintiff’s complaint was appropriate. 

The First Department’s decision in 124 Ridge LLC highlights the fundamental and long-standing principle that liability must be proven, it cannot be presumed by the mere happening of an incident. Motion practice seeking dismissal is therefore appropriate where discovery reveals that a plaintiff’s causes of action are not supported by the established facts.

If you have any questions regarding the content of this alert, please contact Matthew Larkin, Torts & Products Liability Defense Practice Area chair, at; Scott Rogoff, Hotels, Hospitality & Food Service Team leader, at; Jessica Tariq, associate, at; or another member of the firm’s Torts & Products Liability Defense Practice Area or Hotels, Hospitality & Food Service Team.


i2022 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1471 (1st Dept. Mar. 10, 2022).


Click here to sign up for alerts, blog posts, and firm news.

Featured Media


CDPAP Providers Get First Look at the Future of CDPAP Without FIs


New York State Fiscal Year 2025 Budget: Implications for Employers Unpacked


Lab Providers Under Increased Scrutiny From Civil and Criminal Agencies for OTC COVID-19 Test Claims


NYS Appellate Court Dismisses Claim Based on Material Misrepresentations in Insurance Application


It's Not Over Yet. Turning Your Judgments Into Dollars.


Website Accessibility Lawsuits: Several "Tester" Plaintiffs—Danso, Martinez, Hedges, Thorne, Genwright, and Donet—Targeting Businesses in Recent Flurry of Lawsuits

We're Growing in DC!

We’re excited to announce Barclay Damon’s combination with Washington DC–based Shapiro, Lifschitz & Schram. SLS’s 10 lawyers, three paralegals, and four administrative staff will join Barclay Damon while maintaining their current office in DC’s central business district. Our clients will benefit from SLS’s corporate, real estate, finance, and construction litigation experience and national energy-industry profile, and their clients from our full range of services.

Read More

This site uses cookies to give you the best experience possible on our site and in some cases direct advertisements to you based upon your use of our site.

By clicking [I agree], you are agreeing to our use of cookies. For information on what cookies we use and how to manage our use of cookies, please visit our Privacy Statement.

I AgreeOpt-Out