New York Court of Appeals
Antoni Wilinski v. 334 East 92nd Housing Development Fund Corp., Appellants-Respondents
October 25, 201118 N.Y.3d 1
Summary
The New York Court of Appeals held that a worker is not categorically barred from recovery under Labor Law § 240(1) merely because the falling object’s base was at the same level as the worker, and therefore summary judgment was improper on the § 240(1) claim; it also affirmed the denial of summary judgment on the § 241(6) claims and adopted a broader interpretation of the applicable safety‑device regulations. The Court rejected the “same‑level” rule and remanded for fact‑finding on whether the lack of a protective device caused the injury, while noting a dissent that would have affirmed the lower court’s dismissal.