At a Glance
Summary: Liability under Labor Law § 240(1) for an unsecured ladder was established when the plaintiff demonstrated that an A-frame ladder shifted for no apparent reason and the defendants relied on a speculative expert affidavit to oppose summary judgment.
The Court rejected the defendants’ argument that the ladder’s internal locking mechanism was engaged and, therefore, the ladder was secured. The applicable analysis was whether the ladder was secured to something stable or held in place so that it remained steady and upright while being used.
Court: New York Appellate Division, First Department
Decision Date: April 14, 2026
Case: Amancha v 720-730 Fort Washington Ave. Owners Corp., 248 AD3d 493, 2026 NY Slip Op 02196 (1st Dept 2026)
Topic: Labor Law § 240(1), Unsecured Ladder Liability, Speculative Expert Opinion
The Court’s Position
An unsecured ladder that shifts or moves for no apparent reason establishes a prima facie violation of Labor Law § 240(1), triggering absolute liability unless the defendants raise a non-speculative, evidence-based defense. It did not matter whether the ladder’s internal locking mechanism was secured; that evidence was not dispositive as to whether the ladder provided the plaintiff with proper protection.
From a Claims Perspective
If a ladder moves or shifts for no apparent reason during use, assume exposure under Labor Law § 240(1) is high. Late inspections and unsupported expert opinions will not defeat summary judgment. Early investigation and documentation of the accident are critical to defend against these claims.
What Happened
The plaintiff was using an A-frame ladder and performing renovation work. The ladder was not secured to something stable or held in place so that it remained steady and upright while he used it.
The plaintiff claimed that the ladder moved or shifted for no apparent reason. He testified that he heard the ladder’s brackets click into place, indicating that the ladder was “secured.”
The defendants retained a professional engineer who stated in an affidavit opposing the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment that she had examined the ladder two years after the accident. The expert’s affidavit was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact because she did not establish that the ladder she inspected was the same ladder from which the plaintiff fell.
The expert opined that if the ladder tipped over, it did so because the plaintiff applied a lateral force to it. The Court concluded that the defendants’ expert cited no evidence in the record to support her theory.
The Decision
Regarding Labor Law § 240(1), the First Department held that the motion court should have granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment because he established that the ladder moved or shifted for no apparent reason.
The plaintiff’s testimony that he heard the ladder’s internal locking mechanism engage was irrelevant because it did not establish whether the ladder was secured to something stable or held in place so that it remained steady and upright while he used it.
The First Department held that the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact sufficient to defeat the summary judgment motion because they relied on the speculative opinion of their professional engineer. The expert failed to establish that she inspected the ladder the plaintiff actually used, and her inspection occurred two years after the accident.
Practical Impact
The First Department’s reasoning shows that early investigation and retention of a professional engineer provide the best opportunity to defeat a Labor Law § 240(1) claim where the plaintiff claims the ladder moved or shifted for no apparent reason. The engineer’s affidavit in motion practice must be based on the record evidence; otherwise, the court will reject the opinions as speculative.
What to Know
- Ladder movement for no apparent reason alone can establish § 240(1) liability.
- Whether a ladder is “secured” depends on whether it was secured to something stable or held in place so that it remained steady and upright while being used.
- Evidence that the ladder was structurally locked, such as when its brackets are engaged, does not demonstrate that the ladder was “secured” for purposes of § 240(1) liability.
- An expert’s opinion based on speculation carries no probative value on a motion.
Practice Pointers
- Lock in the plaintiff’s testimony early regarding ladder movement
- A professional engineer’s affidavit should clearly address:
- The timing of the inspection.
- The chain of custody for equipment.
- Confirmation that the inspected safety device was the one used during the accident.
- A professional engineer’s opinion must be based on evidence. A speculative opinion has no probative value to support or oppose a motion for summary judgment.
Explore more New York decisions affecting claims handling, motion practice, and litigation strategy at New York Civil Law—Case Summaries & Legal Updates, Clearly Explained.
Forward This Post
If this analysis affects a claim file, coverage position, or motion strategy, forward it to the person handling the issue.
Read more analysis from New York Civil Law here.
Matthew Lerner is a New York civil litigation and appellate attorney at Gerber Ciano Kelly Brady LLP and the publisher of New York Civil Law. He writes about New York appellate decisions, insurance coverage, Labor Law, and litigation strategy for claims professionals and trial attorneys.
Authority
The First Department relied on established case law that evidence that the ladder was unsecured, and that it shifted and moved for no apparent reason, raised the presumption that the safety device was insufficient to give proper protection under § 240(1).
Sources:
- Labor Law § 240(1)
- Amancha v 720-730 Fort Washington Avenue Owners Corp., 248 AD3d 493, 2026 NY Slip Op 02196 (1st Dept 2026)
- Wasilewski v Museum of Modern Art, 260 AD2d 271 (1st Dept 1999)
Questions This Case Answers
- When does a ladder accident trigger automatic liability under Labor Law § 240(1) (New York’s Scaffold Law)?
- Is an A-frame ladder considered “secured” if locked open for purposes of § 240(1) liability?
- Can a delayed expert inspection defeat summary judgment in a § 240(1) claim?
- What makes an expert affidavit legally insufficient in New York?
Related Topics
Summary Judgment Principles, Expert Evidence, Affidavits in Support of Motions
Photo credit: Anastasia Badun