Two recent cases in the First and Second Department address the sole proximate cause analysis of Labor Law sec. 240(1), and the cases reach different results.  The first case, Leniar v. Metropolitan Tr. Auth., is reminiscent of  Cahill v. Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth.  In this case, the plaintiff was injured when he fell approximately 13 feet from
a scissor lift while painting a section of the Verrazano Bridge.  The defendant established on summary judgment that the plaintiff was provided with a safety harness and a lanyard, that he
was present for several safety meetings at which he was instructed in
the use of the harness, that he was instructed to tie-off the harness
at all times while using the scissor lift, and that the plaintiff
intentionally unhooked his harness and climbed on the railing of the
scissor lift, in direct violation of these instructions.  The parties do
not dispute that the plaintiff would not have fallen to the ground and
sustained injuries if his harness had been hooked to the scissor lift.  The plaintiff’s supervisor also stated in an affidavit that he told the plaintiff to paint only the sections of the bridge he could reach.

The Appellate Division, First Department concluded that the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his injuries as a matter of law.  The Court cited Robinson, but curiously failed to cite Cahill.

The defendant in Gonzalez v. Rodless Props. L.P. was not as successful.  The plaintiff sustained a height-related injury; however, the decision is unclear how.  The injured plaintiff was provided with several safety devices
enumerated in Labor Law § 240(1) — two scaffolds, a ladder, ropes and a
safety harness.  The Appellate Division, Second Department held that the defendant raised a triable issue of fact in opposition to the plaintiff’s motion on 240(1) liability that proper safety devices were provided and the worker’s own
recalcitrant conduct may have been the sole proximate cause of his
injury.  Given that the plaintiff seemed to be provided with a multitude of safety devices, I am curious to know why the defendant did not move for summary judgment.