New York Personal Injury Lawyer Blog 24/7
In Chowdhury v. Rodriguez, the Appellate Division, Second Department, considered whether a homeowner could be held liable for injuries suffered by a construction worker who fell from a ladder during a porch renovation. The court evaluated whether the worker’s claims under Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6) could survive summary judgment and clarified how courts should approach cases involving equipment provided by property owners.
Background Facts
Nazrul Chowdhury worked as a laborer for Williamsburg Construction. His employer had been hired to rebuild the front porches of a two-family home in Ridgewood, Queens. The property was occupied by Antonio and Judith Rodriguez, along with their family, and another tenant, Clemente Almonte. Chowdhury’s daily work included tasks like measuring and laying cement.
For over three months, Williamsburg workers used various tools and equipment on the site. Some items were owned by the company, others by the homeowners. One ladder in particular, about 10 to 12 feet tall, belonged to the Rodriguez family. Chowdhury stated that he was initially given permission by Judith Rodriguez to use this ladder, and after that, he continued to use it without asking. The ladder lacked rubber feet, and according to Chowdhury, it had slipped before.
On the day of the accident, Chowdhury used the Rodriguez ladder and placed it on a sloped driveway. While performing cement work above his head, the ladder slipped. Chowdhury tried to jump off, but his foot became caught, and he fell onto the driveway, resulting in injuries.
He filed a lawsuit against the property owners for common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6). The homeowners moved for summary judgment, arguing they did not supervise the work and were protected by the homeowners’ exemption under the Labor Law.
Question Before the Court
The court had to decide whether the homeowners could be held liable for Chowdhury’s injuries. This required reviewing whether the homeowners directed or controlled the work under Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) and whether they created or had notice of the ladder’s defective condition under Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence.
Court’s Decision
The court ruled in favor of the defendants on the Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) claims. It found that they qualified for the homeowners’ exemption because the property was a two-family dwelling, and they did not supervise the methods or manner of Chowdhury’s work. The court rejected the argument that giving aesthetic input, such as commenting on grout color or stone alignment, was equivalent to directing construction tasks.
However, the court allowed Chowdhury’s claims under Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence to proceed. It explained that when a property owner provides equipment used by a worker, the correct legal standard is whether the owner created the defect or had actual or constructive notice of it. Because Chowdhury testified that he was given permission to use the ladder and that the ladder lacked rubber feet, the court found that there was a factual issue about whether the homeowners knew or should have known the ladder was unsafe.
Discussion
The court’s decision clarified an important distinction in Labor Law § 200 cases. If a worker is injured using equipment provided by their own employer, liability depends on whether the property owner had control over the work. But if the equipment came from the property owner, then the question becomes whether the owner created or had notice of a dangerous condition.
Here, Chowdhury claimed that Judith Rodriguez gave him the ladder and that it was missing rubber feet. The ladder had slipped before. These facts raised the question of whether the homeowners should have known the ladder was unsafe.
The court also reviewed previous cases, such as Ortega v. Puccia, which involved equipment supplied by an employer, and Erdely v. Access Direct Sys., where a ladder without rubber feet was stored on site. In cases where the homeowner provided the ladder, courts applied a notice standard instead of a supervision standard.
The court explained that even though the homeowners denied providing the ladder, Chowdhury’s testimony was enough to create a dispute. The homeowners could not win summary judgment on this issue because it required weighing testimony and making credibility determinations, which is not allowed at the summary judgment stage.
In contrast, the claims under Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) failed. These statutes protect workers involved in construction, demolition, or repair who fall due to unsafe conditions, such as defective ladders or scaffolds. However, both statutes contain a specific exemption for owners of one- or two-family homes who do not direct or control the work. Here, the court found that the homeowners qualified for that exemption.
Chowdhury argued that the homeowners were involved in the project and provided suggestions and preferences. But the court found that such input was limited to appearance and progress, not methods or instructions on how to perform the work. As a result, the homeowners were not liable under these sections of the Labor Law.
Conclusion
The court dismissed Chowdhury’s claims under Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) because the homeowners were protected by the statutory exemption. However, it allowed his claims under Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence to move forward based on evidence that the homeowners may have supplied a defective ladder and had knowledge of its condition.
This case highlights how liability for ladder accidents depends on who provided the equipment and what the property owner knew about its condition. If you were injured in a fall from a ladder while working on someone’s property, it is important to speak with an experienced New York ladder accident lawyer who can help you determine whether the property owner may be responsible.