Robles v. 53-63 Walton LLC - Labor Law Opinion

New York Appellate Division

Filed March 17th, 2026

Detected March 18th, 2026

Summary

The New York Appellate Division modified a lower court's order in Robles v. 53-63 Walton LLC, granting plaintiff summary judgment on liability for his Labor Law § 240(1) claim. The court found the plaintiff established his case based on testimony regarding a faulty ladder.

View original document View source feed page

What changed

The New York Appellate Division, First Department, has modified a lower court's decision in Robles v. 53-63 Walton LLC (2026 NY Slip Op 01473). The appellate court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability concerning his Labor Law § 240(1) claim. This ruling stems from the plaintiff's unrebutted testimony that he was provided with a single, unstable ladder that shifted during use, leading to his injury. The court found that the plaintiff's actions did not constitute the sole proximate cause of his injury.

This decision has significant implications for employers and construction firms in New York, particularly regarding workplace safety and liability under Labor Law § 240(1). Compliance officers should review their safety protocols and equipment maintenance procedures to ensure compliance with the stringent requirements of this law. While this ruling focuses on liability, further proceedings may address damages. Companies should be prepared for potential litigation and ensure adequate insurance coverage for such claims.

What to do next

Review Labor Law § 240(1) compliance protocols.
Inspect and maintain all safety equipment, including ladders, to ensure stability and proper functioning.
Assess workplace safety procedures for construction sites to prevent conditions that could lead to sole proximate cause defenses failing.

Source document (simplified)

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 17, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Add Note

Robles v. 53-63 Walton LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Citations: 2026 NY Slip Op 01473
Docket Number: Index No. 24281/17; Appeal No. 6096; Case No. 2025-03016
Opinion
Authorities (3)
Cited By (0)
Summaries (0)
Similar Cases (0)
PDF

Combined Opinion

Robles v 53-63 Walton LLC (2026 NY Slip Op 01473)
| Robles v 53-63 Walton LLC |
| 2026 NY Slip Op 01473 |
| Decided on March 17, 2026 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. |

Decided and Entered: March 17, 2026
Before: Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Kapnick, Shulman, Chan, Hagler, JJ.
Index No. 24281/17|Appeal No. 6096|Case No. 2025-03016|

*[1]Lenicio Robles, Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent,

53-63 Walton LLC, et al., Defendant-Respondent, [And A Third-Party Action]**

Ginarte Gonzalez & Winograd LLP, New York (Anthony DeStefano of counsel), for appellant-respondent.

O'Toole Scrivo, LLC, New York (David M. Chaise of counsel), for respondents-appellants.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Myrna Socorro, J.), entered March 19, 2025, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim and denied defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) claims, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as to liability on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff established prima facie entitlement to summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim through his unrebutted testimony that he was given access only to one ladder, which he described as "loose" and lacking rubber feet; that all four feet of the ladder were on the floor; and that the ladder shifted while he used it (see Bonanno v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 298 AD2d 269, 270 [1st Dept 2002]).

Even assuming that plaintiff's placement of his foot on a railing while he worked contributed to his fall, this assumption would not lead to a conclusion that he was the sole proximate cause of his injury, as he provided a specific reason why he had to use the ladder and railing in this manner: the area where he was sanding was not conducive to an extender, the ladder was placed in the only way that allowed him to do the work he was assigned, and that he could not have placed the ladder on top of the stairs to do the work (see Noor v City of New York, 130 AD3d 536, 540-541 [1st Dept 2015]). Furthermore, given plaintiff's testimony about how the fall occurred, there is no indication that the ladder was secured or that other adequate safety devices were provided (see Bonanno, 298 AD2d at 269-270). Plaintiff was therefore entitled to summary judgment on the issue of liability, regardless of comparative fault (see Blake v Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of N.Y. City, 1 NY3d 280, 290 [2003]; Lucas v City of New York, 236 AD3d 523, 524-525 [1st Dept 2003]).

In light of our determination on plaintiff's Labor Law § 240(1) claim, the parties' arguments concerning plaintiff's Labor Law § 241(6) cause of action are academic (see

Malan v FSJ Realty Group II LLC, 213 AD3d 541, 542 [1st Dept 2023]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: March 17, 2026