The Appellate Division, First Department, decided the case of Dibrino v. Rockefeller Center North, Inc. on July 2, 2024. The case involved a construction worker who fell from a ladder on a commercial job site in Manhattan. The key question was whether the defendants violated New York Labor Law § 240(1), which requires owners and contractors to provide safety devices that protect workers from elevation-related risks.
Background Facts
Plaintiff Dominick Dibrino worked for a subcontractor named Jacobson & Company, which handled drywall and ceiling installation. The project took place on the fifth floor of a commercial property located at 1271 Avenue of the Americas. Rockefeller Center North, Inc. owned the property, and JRM Construction Management LLC served as the general contractor. JRM hired DAL Electrical Corporation as the electrical subcontractor.
On the morning of the accident, Dibrino used a scaffold and a ladder provided by Jacobson to mark measurements for ceiling installation. He later moved the equipment to another floor for a different task. During lunch, his foreman told him the measurements needed to be reviewed. Dibrino returned to the pantry area on the fifth floor and found a six-foot A-frame ladder already set up. He used that ladder instead of retrieving the one he used earlier. While standing on the second or third rung, the ladder moved and wobbled. He attempted to jump off but his foot became caught in the rungs, and he fell and was injured.
Dibrino did not know who owned the ladder at the time, but later learned that it belonged to DAL. DAL had not supplied the ladder to him or given him permission to use it.
Question Before the Court
The court had to decide whether Dibrino was entitled to summary judgment under Labor Law § 240(1) against Rockefeller and JRM. The court also had to determine whether DAL could be held liable for common-law negligence and under Labor Law § 200. Additionally, the court reviewed whether DAL was required to indemnify Rockefeller and JRM under a contractual provision.
Court’s Decision
The court ruled in favor of Dibrino on the Labor Law § 240(1) claim against Rockefeller and JRM. It found that the ladder had not been secured properly and failed to provide protection from the risk of falling. The court stated that a worker’s failure to maintain three points of contact or alleged overreaching did not eliminate the defendants’ statutory duties.
However, the court dismissed the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims against DAL. It found that DAL had no duty to Dibrino because DAL did not supervise, direct, or control his work. DAL also had no contractual relationship with Dibrino or his employer.
The court also dismissed the contractual indemnification claim against DAL. The court found that the contract required indemnification only for incidents arising from DAL’s own work or negligence. Since the court dismissed the negligence claim, the indemnification provision did not apply.
Discussion
The court explained that under Labor Law § 240(1), owners and contractors must provide safety devices like ladders and scaffolds to protect workers from elevation risks. If a worker falls because a ladder was not secure, the owner or contractor may be held liable even if the worker was partly at fault.
Here, the court found that the ladder moved while Dibrino was working, and that alone supported liability under § 240(1). Testimony from his foreman that he may have overreached was not enough to defeat the claim, especially since the foreman did not see the fall and admitted that the task could not be performed while keeping three points of contact on the ladder.
The court rejected DAL’s argument that it should not be held liable for common-law negligence. DAL claimed that the blue tape on the ladder might have been intended to signal it was unsafe. However, DAL did not provide the ladder to Dibrino, did not supervise his work, and did not authorize the use of its equipment by other trades. Under the rules established in Espinal v. Melville Snow Contractors and related cases, a contractor generally does not owe a duty to someone who is not a party to its contract, unless it creates a hazardous condition or displaces another party’s duty to maintain safety.
The court found that DAL did not create a hazard because there was no evidence that the ladder was defective or placed in a dangerous position. While DAL admitted that blue tape was sometimes used to mark defective equipment, this particular ladder was not marked with a “do not use” label, and it was left in an open position. There was no evidence that DAL caused the ladder to be unstable or placed it in a way that would lead to injury.
As for the indemnification claim, the court focused on the contract between DAL and JRM. The agreement required DAL to indemnify JRM and Rockefeller for claims arising out of DAL’s work. But Dibrino was not performing electrical work, and DAL had no role in supervising his task. Because the incident did not arise from DAL’s work or fault, the court ruled that the indemnification provision was not triggered.
Conclusion
The Dibrino case reaffirmed that property owners and general contractors are responsible for ensuring that workers have safe equipment under Labor Law § 240(1). Even if a worker uses another subcontractor’s equipment without permission, liability may still rest with the owner or general contractor if the equipment fails to provide proper protection.
However, the case also showed that subcontractors like DAL are not automatically liable for injuries simply because their equipment is involved. If the subcontractor did not supervise the worker, did not provide the equipment for that worker’s use, and did not create a dangerous condition, then it likely does not owe a duty of care to that worker.