Non-Delegable Owner Duties and Factual Disputes over Ladder Use: An Exhaustive Commentary on Cabrera v. Provident Alpine Partners, L.P. (2025)

1. Introduction

Background. Luis Cabrera, a construction worker employed by Loyal Stars Construction, Inc. (“Loyal”), allegedly fell from an A-frame aluminum ladder while demolishing a ceiling-wall intersection in an apartment building owned by Provident Alpine Partners, L.P. (“Provident”). Cabrera and his wife sued Provident for violations of New York Labor Law §§ 240(1) (the “Scaffold Law”) and 241(6) and for common-law negligence.

Procedural Posture. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on § 240(1) and granted Provident’s cross-motion dismissing both §§ 240(1) and 241(6) claims. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, modified the order, reinstating both statutory claims while still denying plaintiffs’ affirmative summary-judgment request.

Key Issues on Appeal.

• Whether conflicting deposition testimony on ladder necessity and authorization creates triable issues that defeat summary judgment for either side under § 240(1).
• Whether an owner without onsite control can still be dismissed from a § 241(6) claim given the statute’s non-delegable duty.
• Whether plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded Industrial Code violations and could rely on additional sections first cited in motion practice.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Second Department:

• Affirmed the lower court’s denial of plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment under § 240(1), holding that Provident raised a genuine factual dispute about Cabrera’s need to use a ladder and his possible sole proximate cause.
• Reversed the dismissal of the § 240(1) claim, finding that Provident also failed to make a prima facie showing for summary judgment because Cabrera’s own testimony supported liability.
• Reversed the dismissal of the § 241(6) claim, emphasizing the owner’s non-delegable duty and rejecting arguments on pleading insufficiency and belated citation of Industrial Code §§ 23-1.21(b)(3)(iv) & (b)(4)(ii).
• Left intact the remainder of the order. Costs of the appeal were awarded to plaintiffs.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• Ross v. Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Electric Co., 81 N.Y.2d 494 (1993): Foundational authority on the non-delegable nature of owner/contractor duties under §§ 240(1) and 241(6). The court repeatedly quoted Ross to rebut Provident’s “control of the worksite” argument.
• Broggy v. Rockefeller Group, Inc., 8 N.Y.3d 675 (2007) & Robinson v. East Med. Ctr., LP, 6 N.Y.3d 550 (2006): Clarify “sole proximate cause” and circumstances where gravity-related protection is unnecessary. These cases supplied the doctrinal backdrop for denying plaintiffs’ summary-judgment motion.
• Caiazzo v. Mark Joseph Contr., Inc., 119 A.D.3d 718 (2d Dep’t 2014); Alvarez v. 2455 8 Ave., LLC, 202 A.D.3d 724 (2d Dep’t 2022): Articulate the plaintiff’s prima facie burden under § 240(1), i.e., a fall from a defective or unsecured ladder.
• Morales v. 50 N. First Partners, LLC, 208 A.D.3d 475 (2d Dep’t 2022): Emphasizes exceptions for non-gravity work and sole-proximate-cause defense—relied on heavily to frame the factual dispute.
• Winegrad v. NYU Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851 (1985): Classic rule that a movant’s failure to make a prima facie showing ends the inquiry regardless of opponent’s papers; basis for reversing dismissal of both claims.
• Riccio v. NHT Owners, LLC, 51 A.D.3d 897 (2d Dep’t 2008); Ochoa v. JEM Real Estate Co., LLC, 223 A.D.3d 747 (2d Dep’t 2024): Confirm specificity of Industrial Code § 23-1.21 ladder provisions and illustrate evidentiary burdens. Guided reinstatement of § 241(6) claim.
• Additional authorities (Heras, Rivas, St. Louis, Toalongo, Simmons, Melchor) buttressed discrete points on factual disputes and pleading sufficiency.

3.2 Court’s Legal Reasoning

a) Competing Versions of the Accident. Plaintiffs presented evidence that the ladder wobbled and that demolition of ceiling-adjacent wall sections necessitated an elevation device. Provident countered with testimony from Loyal’s principal and Cabrera’s supervisor that (i) the task could be done from the floor and (ii) Cabrera was instructed not to climb. The court held these diametrically opposed narratives create credibility issues inappropriate for summary resolution (Heras standard).

b) Sole Proximate Cause Defense. Under Broggy/Robinson, an owner can escape § 240(1) liability if the worker’s unilateral misconduct is the singular cause of injury. However, because Cabrera testified he was told to perform ceiling-level demolition, that defense was not established as a matter of law. Thus: no summary judgment for either side.

c) Non-Delegable Duty under § 241(6). The lower court erred by focusing on Provident’s lack of site control. The Appellate Division reiterated that an owner’s duty to comply with specific Industrial Code safety rules is non-delegable; absence of control is irrelevant to liability though it may bear on indemnification.

d) Specificity and Timing of Industrial Code Provisions. Provident argued that plaintiffs failed to plead specific Code sections and unfairly introduced §§ 23-1.21(b)(3)(iv) & (b)(4)(ii) in motion practice. The court rejected both notions, citing liberal pleading rules (Toalongo) and precedent allowing identification of specific regulations during litigation (Simmons).

e) Proof of Compliance with 12 NYCRR § 23-1.21. Provident failed to tender any inspection records or testimony about the actual ladder or floor surface; Cabrera’s uncontested statement of wobbling sufficed to raise a triable question. Without a prima facie showing, the motion had to be denied per Winegrad.

3.3 Likely Impact of the Decision

• Elevated Standard for Defense Summary Motions. Owners cannot secure dismissal merely by pointing to instructions allegedly forbidding ladder use; they must also negate plaintiff’s contrary testimony.
• Re-affirmation of Non-Delegable Liability. The decision fortifies worker protections by underscoring that § 241(6) claims should seldom be dismissed on “control” grounds at the summary stage.
• Pleading Flexibility. Litigants may specify Industrial Code provisions later in motion practice without imperiling their § 241(6) cause, encouraging substance over form.
• Practical Litigation Consequences. Expect increased reluctance by trial courts to grant defense summary judgment in ladder-fall cases where any testimony supports ladder necessity. Settlement valuations for owners and their insurers may correspondingly rise.
• Union and Safety Policy Considerations. By stressing the adequacy of safety devices and maintenance duties, the ruling promotes stringent site safety practices, aligning with New York’s broader pro-worker legislative scheme.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Summary Judgment. A procedural device allowing a court to decide a claim without trial when there is no genuine dispute of material fact.
• Prima Facie Case. The initial showing a party must make to shift the burden of proof to the opponent—here, owners must first show entitlement to judgment before the court even looks at plaintiff’s opposition.
• Non-Delegable Duty. A legal obligation that cannot be transferred to another party. Owners remain liable even if they hire independent contractors.
• Sole Proximate Cause. A defense asserting the worker’s own missteps were the only reason the accident occurred, thereby breaking the causal chain between statutory violation and injury.
• Industrial Code. Detailed regulations (12 NYCRR) promulgated by the NY Department of Labor; violations underpin § 241(6) liability.

5. Conclusion

Cabrera v. Provident Alpine Partners solidifies two pivotal tenets of New York construction-accident jurisprudence:

1. The presence of any credible testimony—however conflicting—on ladder necessity or authorization renders summary judgment inappropriate on § 240(1), for either plaintiff or defendant.
2. An owner’s statutory duty under § 241(6) is fully non-delegable; arguments based on lack of on-site control or belated pleading of Industrial Code provisions cannot warrant dismissal.

These clarifications will resonate in future ladder-fall disputes, recalibrating litigation strategy for plaintiffs, defendants, and insurers alike while reinforcing the protective policy underlying New York’s Labor Law.