Stissi v. Seagull Islandia
Justice William Rebolini
Worker Stissi sought to recover damages for injuries allegedly sustained when he was electrocuted and fell from a ladder. Building owner Seagull Islandia, property manager Aresco Management and general contractor Ball Construction moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, arguing they did not control Stissi's work, nor create or have notice of the dangerous condition. Stissi argued he was not provided with adequate safety devices under Labor Law §240 to prevent him from falling after being electrocuted and that he stated a claim under §241(6) for Industrial Code violations as he was engaged in an "alteration" of the building being renovated. The court agreed, finding Stissi's work of installing communication cables/wires constituted a significant physical change, thus fell under the enumerated activity of "altering" within the meaning of §240(1). Further, evidence adduced raised questions of fact if Stissi sustained injuries as a result of his fall from the ladder and if the ladder failed to provide protection or required defendants to provide Stissi with additional safety devices. As such, defendants' motion for dismissal of the §240(1) claim was denied.