Wilinski v. 334 East 92nd Housing Development Fund Corp., 18 N.Y.3d 1

Plaintiff Antoni Wilinski was demolishing a warehouse; two unsecured metal pipes about 10 feet tall stood nearby.
Debris from a nearby wall caused the pipes to topple, striking Wilinski and causing multiple injuries.
The pipes and the work site were at Wilinski's level; no safety devices were used to secure the pipes.
Plaintiff asserted violations of Labor Law § 240(1) and § 241(6), citing 12 NYCRR 23-3.3(b)(3) and (c).
Supreme Court granted summary judgment on § 240(1); Appellate Division partially granted defendants’ summary judgment and dismissed § 240(1) claim; questions certified to this Court.
This Court held that § 240(1) is not categorically excluded for same-level falling objects and that material issues of fact remain regarding protective devices.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether same-level falling objects are categorically shielded from §240(1).	Wilinski argues no categorical exclusion; burden on lack of device.	Misseritti controls to exclude same-level falling-object injuries.	Not categorically excluded; factual dispute on devices remains
Whether lack of a statutorily prescribed protective device proximately caused the injury.	Absence of device contributed to the harm.	No demonstrable causal nexus established.	Issue for trier of fact
Whether §241(6) claims survive under 12 NYCRR 23-3.3(b)(3).	Regulation applicable to prevent falls from unguarded parts.	Regulation not applicable to wind pressure/vibration effects here.	Regulation reading adopted in favor of applicability; denial of summary judgment affirmed
Whether continued inspections under 12 NYCRR 23-3.3(c) were satisfied.	Noncompliance led to hazards during demolition.	Noncompliance not proven to cause the accident.	Issues of fact on compliance; summary judgment denied
Overall liability under Labor Law § 240(1) given disputed causal nexus and protective devices.	Protective devices could have prevented the accident; there is a factual link.	No sufficient nexus or enumerated device shown.	No summary judgment; issue of fact for trial

Rocovich v. Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., 78 N.Y.2d 509 (N.Y. 1991) (defines gravity-related hazards and protective devices scope)
Ross v. Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 N.Y.2d 494 (N.Y. 1993) (limits §240(1) to gravity-related risks and proper securing)
Narducci v. Manhasset Bay Assoc., 96 N.Y.2d 259 (N.Y. 2001) (applies §240(1) to falling objects and hoisting context)
Misseritti v. Mark IV Constr. Co., 86 N.Y.2d 487 (N.Y. 1995) (categorical defense for completed structures; evaluation of protective devices)
Quattrocchi v. F.J. Sciame Constr. Corp., 11 N.Y.3d 757 (N.Y. 2008) (liability not limited to hoisted or secured falling objects)
Runner v. New York Stock Exch., Inc., 13 N.Y.3d 599 (N.Y. 2009) (elevation differential analysis extends to non-traditional scenarios)
Brink v. Yeshiva Univ., 259 A.D.2d 265 (1st Dept 1999) (illustrates same-level considerations in §240(1) context)