Fullerton Beck Secures Dismissal of Labor Law § 240(1) Claim in High-Exposure Construction Accident Case

Fullerton Beck LLP successfully defeated a plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and obtained dismissal of a New York Labor Law § 240(1) claim on behalf of its client in a high-exposure construction accident arising from the Javits Center expansion project.

The plaintiff, a union carpenter employed by non-party Component Assembly Systems (“CAS”), was engaged in work at the project site when the incident occurred. CAS had been retained by Lendlease-Turner, a joint venture overseeing the expansion.

According to the allegations, the plaintiff was assisting co-workers in transporting a large steel beam using a power jack. The beam was supported at the rear by a square dolly with an open center, while the plaintiff positioned himself at the rear to stabilize the load. During a maneuver, the power jack operator was unable to complete a turn, causing an abrupt stop. The beam shifted forward and dropped through the opening in the dolly, which in turn propelled the dolly upward toward the plaintiff. He allegedly sustained a fractured hand, as well as shoulder and cervical spine injuries, the latter requiring a two-level discectomy and fusion.

The plaintiff moved for summary judgment under Labor Law § 240(1), attempting to characterize the incident as an elevation-related hazard under the framework established in Runner v. New York Stock Exchange, Inc. He argued that the upward force of the dolly was a direct consequence of the beam’s gravitational movement, asserting that even a minimal descent could trigger liability under the statute.

Fullerton Beck opposed the plaintiff’s summary judgment motion, arguing that the facts did not give rise to the type of extraordinary elevation-related risk contemplated by Labor Law § 240(1). The firm distinguished Runner, emphasizing that the beam did not fall in the statutory sense, and that the upward movement of the dolly was not the sort of gravity-related hazard the statute was designed to address.

The court agreed, rejecting the plaintiff’s reliance on Runner and finding that the incident did not involve a qualifying elevation-related risk. The court dismissed the Labor Law § 240(1) claim in its entirety, adopting the arguments advanced by the defense.