New York Civil Law

At A Glance:

Summary: The Court rejected the 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., 2026 NY Slip Op 02196 (1st Dept 2026)

Topic: Law § 240(1), Ladder Liability / Indemnification, 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 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 proper protection.

---

From A Claims Perpective:

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 expert, who stated in opposition to the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment that she examined the ladder two years after the accident. The expert’s affidavit was deficient to raise a triable issue of fact because she did not establish that the ladder that she inspected was actually the same ladder from which the plaintiff fell.

The expert’s opinion that, if the ladder tipped over it did so because plaintiff applied a lateral force to it, 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 to defeat the summary judgment because they relied on the speculative opinion of their professional engineer. Her opinion was speculative and unsupported by the record evidence. She failed to establish that she inspected the ladder at issue, and her inspection occurred two years after the accident.

---

Why This Matters:

The First Department’s reasoning shows that early investigation and retention of a professional engineer provide the best chance of defeating 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 wil reject the opinions as speculative.

---

What to Know:

• Ladder movement for no apparent reason alone can establish § 240(1) liability
• A “secured” ladder means whether the ladder 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 plaintiff testimony early regarding ladder movement
• An professional engineer’s affidavit should be clear on:
  • Timing of inspection
  • Chain of custody of equipment
  • Inspection was of the safety device used during the accident
• A professional engineer’s opinion must be based on evidence. A speculative opinoin 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

---

---

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 caselaw that evidence that the ladder was unsecured, and that it shifted and moved for no apparent reason, raised the presumption that it was insufficient to give proper protection under § 240(1).

---

Sources:

• Labor Law § 240(1)
• 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 to Anastasia Badun