At A Glance
Summary: The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed summary judgment for a plaintiff injured when a 1,000-pound column being hoisted with a roustabout fell, launching him into the air and striking him during the hoisting operation. The Court determined that the accident presented the type of gravity-related hoisting injury governed by Labor Law § 240(1) and Runner v New York Stock Exchange, Inc.
Court: Appellate Division, First Department
Decision Date: May 21, 2026
Case: Andrade v 1203 E. N.Y. Ave Owner, LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op 03222 (1st Dept 2026)
Topic: Labor Law § 240(1), falling object, hoisting, counterweight injury
What Happened
Labor Law § 240(1) applies where an injury flows directly from the force of gravity acting on a heavy object being hoisted, even if the plaintiff cannot identify whether he was struck by the load or the hoisting device. The First Department treated the failed hoisting operation as the type of gravity-related risk addressed in Runner v New York Stock Exchange, Inc.
The Decision
The First Department affirmed summary judgment for the plaintiff on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim. The Court held that the accident fell within the statute because the plaintiff was injured when an inadequately controlled object fell during a hoisting operation. The Court also held that the plaintiff’s inability to identify the precise object that struck him did not defeat summary judgment.
The Court rejected the defendants’ premature-motion argument because the alleged need to depose the plaintiff’s coworkers was raised for the first time on appeal and, in any event, the defendants did not make an evidentiary showing that further discovery might lead to evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact.
From a Claims Perspective
For claims involving hoisted materials, cranes, roustabouts, pulleys, or rigging, the key valuation issue is not simply whether the plaintiff fell from a height. The more important question is whether the injury resulted from the uncontrolled descent or movement of a heavy object because of inadequate gravity-related protection.
Practical Impact
This is a strong plaintiff-side Labor Law § 240(1) decision because the Court focused on the failed control of a heavy hoisted object rather than on whether the plaintiff fell from a scaffold or was struck by a clearly identified falling object.
For adjusters, the decision is important because it shows how quickly a hoisting accident can create serious § 240(1) exposure. Where a heavy load falls or descends during a lifting operation, arguments based on the plaintiff’s positioning, comparative fault, or uncertainty about the precise object of impact may not be enough to defeat summary judgment. The fact that the plaintiff acted as a counterweight was central to the Court’s application of Runner.
Runner is the central authority because it makes clear that Labor Law § 240(1) is not limited to the two classic scenarios: a worker falling from a height or an object falling directly onto a worker. The Court of Appeals framed the “single decisive question” as whether the injury was the direct consequence of inadequate protection against a risk arising from a physically significant elevation differential.
In Runner, the plaintiff served as a counterweight while workers tried to move an 800-pound reel down a flight of stairs using a makeshift rope system. The reel’s descent pulled the plaintiff horizontally into a metal bar. The Court of Appeals held that § 240(1) applied because the injury flowed from the force of gravity acting on the heavy object, even though the reel did not fall directly on the plaintiff.
Andrade fits squarely within that rule. The plaintiff was acting as a counterweight during a hoisting operation involving a 1,000-pound column. When the column fell, the force generated by the failed hoisting process launched the plaintiff and caused him to be struck by either the column or the roustabout. Like Runner, the injury was not merely a routine workplace accident; it was the direct result of gravity acting on a heavy object that was not adequately controlled.
Practice Pointers
- A failed hoisting operation involving a heavy object can establish Labor Law § 240(1) liability.
- A plaintiff does not necessarily need to identify the exact object that struck him if the record otherwise establishes a gravity-related statutory violation.
- Acting as a counterweight can bring the case within Runner when the injury flows from the uncontrolled movement or descent of a heavy object.
- Comparative negligence is not a defense to Labor Law § 240(1). A sole proximate cause defense requires more than proof that the plaintiff exercised poor judgment or disregarded an instruction.
- A party opposing an early summary judgment motion must identify a nonspeculative basis for believing that additional discovery may produce evidence sufficient to defeat the motion.
For deeper appellate-level analysis of this case or other issues affecting claims handling and risk transfer, follow New York Civil Law or contact Matthew Lerner.
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.
Questions This Case Series Answers
- Does Labor Law § 240(1) apply when a worker is injured during a failed hoisting operation?
- Does Runner v New York Stock Exchange, Inc. apply when a worker acts as a counterweight during the movement of a heavy object?
- Can a plaintiff obtain summary judgment under Labor Law § 240(1) if he cannot identify the exact object that struck him?
- Does standing on hoisting equipment constitute comparative negligence or sole proximate cause under a Labor Law § 240(1) analysis?
- What evidence is needed to oppose an early Labor Law § 240(1) summary judgment motion?
Authority
The primary authority is Runner v New York Stock Exchange, Inc., 13 NY3d 599 (2009), in which the Court of Appeals held that Labor Law § 240(1) applies when an injury is caused by inadequate protection against a gravity-related risk arising from a physically significant elevation differential.
Sources
Labor Law § 240(1)
Runner v New York Stock Exchange, Inc., 13 NY3d 599 (2009)
Gallegos v Bridge Land Vestry, LLC, 188 AD3d 566 (1st Dept 2020)
Harsanyi v Extell 4110 LLC, 220 AD3d 528 (1st Dept 2023)
Penaranda v 4933 Realty, LLC, 118 AD3d 596 (1st Dept 2014)
Mayorquin v Carriage House Owner’s Corp., 202 AD3d 541 (1st Dept 2022)
Harjo-Codd v Tishman Constr. Corp., 233 AD3d 542 (1st Dept 2024)
Related Topics
Labor Law, Scaffold Law, Hoisting, Falling Object, Runner, Counterweight, Construction Accidents, Labor Law § 240 Runner hoisting injury
Photo Credit: Elvir K