Maddix v. William Paley Found. Inc.
2025 NY Slip Op 30845(U)
N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty.2025Background
- Paul Maddix, a bricklayer employed by Blade Contracting, Inc., was working on façade restoration at 1 East 53rd Street, New York, when he was injured.
- On June 5, 2018, Maddix and his co-workers were manually transporting heavy precast stone slabs to the tenth floor; during this process, a slab fell and crushed Maddix's foot.
- Maddix alleged that the absence of hoisting or securing devices to move the stone created a hazardous condition and violated New York's Labor Law § 240(1) (the Scaffold Law), among other statutes and code sections.
- Defendants included William Paley Foundation (the owner) and Blade Contracting (the contractor); a co-defendant engineer was discontinued from the case.
- Maddix moved for summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240(1) against the owner; defendants opposed, arguing the risk was inherent and adequately handled by experienced workers.
- Blade also cross-moved for dismissal of all claims against them and cross-claims involving indemnification and insurance, but their cross-motion was procedurally improper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff’s Argument | Defendant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Liability under Labor Law § 240(1) | Maddix argued lack of safety devices (hoist/securing device) to move heavy stone at elevation directly caused his injury, triggering absolute owner liability | Paley argued experienced workers could handle stone manually; use of a hoist was unnecessary, and accident resulted from worker's method choice, not lack of devices | Summary judgment for Maddix; owner strictly liable under § 240(1) as proper safety devices were not provided |
| Applicability of Labor Law § 240(1) | The accident involved a gravity-related risk covered by the statute—elevated object falling and injuring a worker | Defendants argued the risk was ordinary to the work, not one requiring special protection under the statute | Court found risk clearly within the statute’s ambit; elevation-related risk required safety measures |
| Procedural validity of Blade's cross-motion | N/A (Maddix did not move against Blade or on other claims in main motion) | Blade sought summary judgment and dismissal of all claims/cross-claims, including those asserted by William Paley | Court declined to consider Blade's cross-motion; it was not sufficiently related to the main motion |
| Owner’s Nondelegable Duty | Owner is strictly liable for failure to provide safety devices, regardless of supervision or control | Paley argued lack of direct supervision/control should insulate him from liability | The court reaffirmed nondelegability; owner’s liability is strict regardless of supervision |
Key Cases Cited
- Pullman v. Silverman, 28 N.Y.3d 1060 (summary judgment standards in New York)
- Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320 (party seeking summary judgment must show prima facie entitlement)
- Wilinski v. 334 E. 92nd Hous. Dev. Fund Corp., 18 N.Y.3d 1 (Labor Law § 240(1) imposes absolute liability for elevation-related hazards)
- Rocovich v. Consolidated Edison Co., 78 N.Y.2d 509 (Labor Law § 240(1) covers significant risk from elevation differences)
- Blake v. Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of New York City, Inc., 1 N.Y.3d 280 (statute requires proximate cause from violation)
- Haimes v. New York Tel. Co., 46 N.Y.2d 132 (owner’s duty under Labor Law § 240(1) is nondelegable)
- Zimmer v. Chemung County Performing Arts, 65 N.Y.2d 513 (ultimate safety responsibility lies with owners/general contractors)