Buono v. AvalonBay Communities, Inc.

Background

Stephen Buono alleged that AvalonBay Communities, Inc. violated New York Labor Law sections 240(1), 241(6), and 200, and committed common-law negligence. The case was a diversity action removed from state court. AvalonBay moved for summary judgment, asking the court to rule that the evidence could not support Buono’s claims as a matter of law.

In December 2017, AvalonBay owned a property where renovations were being performed. AvalonBay retained Applied Electrical to perform electrical work, and Buono worked for Applied Electrical. Applied Electrical provided Buono’s equipment and supervised his work. AvalonBay had three onsite superintendents who coordinated and scheduled contractors’ work.

On December 27, 2017, Buono and a foreman were running wires to connect temporary heaters. In a second room, a six-foot A-frame ladder stood open in the middle of the room. The ladder belonged to another contractor and had previously been used by other workers. As the foreman pulled wire through the room, the wire caught the bottom of the ladder. The ladder fell, struck Buono’s knee, and caused him to fall backward and hit his back and head. The room was dark, with debris pushed to the side. Buono testified that he did not see workers return to the ladder before he left that day.

Summary-judgment standard

Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about a material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court applied the federal summary-judgment standard because federal procedural law governs a diversity case in federal court.

New York Labor Law section 240(1)

Section 240(1), often called the scaffold law, requires owners and contractors to provide specified safety devices and imposes liability for injuries caused by failures involving certain elevation-related hazards. The court held that Buono’s injury did not arise from the type of physically significant elevation risk covered by the statute.

The ladder was six feet tall, was standing open and unused, and fell after being struck by a wire. Buono was about two feet away, believed the ladder was made of aluminum and plastic, and was able to move it after the accident. The court concluded that the ladder’s composition, height, and fall could not create the extraordinary elevation risk required by section 240(1). The court therefore granted AvalonBay summary judgment on this claim.

New York Labor Law section 241(6)

Section 241(6) requires owners and contractors to provide reasonable and adequate safety protection. A claim under that section must be based on a violation of a specific New York Industrial Code provision.

Buono relied on Industrial Code sections 23-1.7(e) and 23-2.1(a). The court granted summary judgment on both theories. Section 23-1.7(e), which concerns tripping hazards, did not apply because the evidence showed that Buono was injured by a falling ladder, not by slipping or tripping. The ladder fell because it was struck by wire, and the record did not show that a tripping hazard caused the accident.

Section 23-2.1(a) also did not apply. Its provisions concern materials near an edge or materials obstructing a passageway, walkway, stairway, or other defined thoroughfare. The ladder was in the middle of a room, and the evidence did not show that it blocked a defined path. Merely walking through the room to reach another room was not enough to make it a passageway or thoroughfare. The court granted summary judgment on Buono’s section 241(6) claim.

New York Labor Law section 200 and common-law negligence

Section 200 codifies an owner’s or contractor’s common-law duty to maintain a safe workplace. Courts generally analyze section 200 and common-law negligence claims together. These claims can involve either a dangerous or defective property condition or dangers arising from the way work is performed.

The court found a factual dispute about which category applied. A jury could find that the ladder was part of ongoing work, or could instead find that it had been abandoned in the middle of a dark room and created a dangerous property condition. The court ruled that AvalonBay could not be liable under a theory based on the manner of work because the evidence showed only general oversight, not authority to supervise or control how the work was performed.

The court nevertheless denied summary judgment on the dangerous-property-condition theory. A jury could find that the ladder had been left unused for several hours, making it possible that AvalonBay had constructive notice—that is, that the condition was visible and existed long enough that its employees could have discovered and corrected it. The section 200 and common-law negligence claims therefore remained unresolved.

Disposition

The court granted AvalonBay’s motion for summary judgment in part and denied it in part. It granted the motion on the section 240(1) and section 241(6) claims and denied it on the section 200 and common-law negligence claims. The Clerk of Court was directed to close Docket No. 39.