This page summarizes and comments on a published court decision. It is general information, not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every case depends on its own facts. Unless this page says otherwise, The Eskesen Law Firm did not represent any party in this case.
Bottom line
Labor Law 240(1) may cover a worker hurt when a heavy object he is carrying falls even a short distance, but if the record shows another possible cause, the question may be left for trial. Here, the First Department modified the order to deny a worker’s motion for summary judgment under Labor Law 240(1), because he testified that his foot slipped on a wet floor within a split second of a 400-pound beam falling onto it and that he did not know which happened first.
The case
- Court
- Appellate Division, First Department
- Decided
- October 20, 2026
- Case
- Mema v Procida Constr. Corp.
- Citation
- 2026 NY Slip Op 06066
- Official text
- Read the decision on the New York courts’ official reporter site
The facts
The plaintiff testified that his supervisors instructed him to move a beam by hand. As the court described it, a 400-pound beam he was carrying fell 8 to 10 inches onto his foot. He also testified that his foot slipped on a wet floor within a split second of the beam falling, and that he did not know which happened first. He sued Procida Construction Corp., which moved for summary judgment dismissing his negligence and Labor Law §§ 200 and 240(1) claims; he moved for partial summary judgment under Labor Law 240(1). The Supreme Court, Bronx County, denied Procida’s motion and granted his, and Procida appealed.
The holding
The First Department unanimously modified the order to deny the plaintiff’s motion, and otherwise affirmed. He showed, prima facie, that he was injured due to a “failure to provide adequate protection against a risk arising from a physically significant elevation differential” (2026 NY Slip Op 06066, *2, quoting Runner v New York Stock Exch., Inc.). But Procida “raised an issue of fact by pointing to plaintiff’s testimony that the accident was also caused by his foot slipping on a wet floor within a split second of the beam falling, and that he did not know which happened first” (id.). On Labor Law 200 and negligence, Procida “failed to make a prima facie showing that it did not exercise supervisory control over plaintiff’s work” (id. at *1); the deposition answer it relied on was “at best ambiguous” (id.).
What changed
Nothing new: this applies settled law, including the Court of Appeals’ decision in Runner v New York Stock Exch., Inc. (13 NY3d 599) and the court’s earlier decision in Jackson v Hunter Roberts Constr. Group, LLC (161 AD3d 666).
What it means
- Labor Law 240(1) is not limited to long falls. As the Court of Appeals put it in Runner, “the single decisive question is whether plaintiff’s injuries were the direct consequence of a failure to provide adequate protection against a risk arising from a physically significant elevation differential.” A 400-pound beam falling 8 to 10 inches met that first showing.
- When the worker’s own testimony points to a second possible cause, and he does not know which came first, the court may leave the question for trial.
- A defendant asking to be let out of Labor Law 200 and negligence claims had to show it did not supervise the work, and one ambiguous answer was not enough. All three claims remain in the case.
Our view
Commentary by Frank N. Eskesen. This section is opinion.
This decision came one week after Mitchell v Pullman SST (see our entry), where the First Department affirmed summary judgment on liability under Labor Law 240(1) for a foreman who hurt his back catching a slipping 230-pound beam. Both cases involved heavy beams moved by hand. The difference here was a second possible cause, from the plaintiff’s own testimony: a wet floor, and his statement that he did not know which happened first. We believe that when a witness does not know, “I don’t know” is the right answer. It did not end his claim; it means the question goes to trial instead of being decided on papers. We would add that the wet floor may also point to the danger itself. He testified that his supervisors told him to move a 400-pound beam by hand. If the floor along the way may be wet, a slip is one way a beam that heavy comes down. The floor is not a safety device under the statute, but a hoist, sling, or other device of the kind the statute lists may have kept a slip from becoming a falling beam. This decision does not address that question. We note, too, that unclear testimony cut both ways: the defense’s motion failed because one question and answer about who supervised him was ambiguous. Two lessons follow. 1. After an accident at work, write down what happened, in order, as soon as you can. 2. For lawyers, one unclear question and answer can decide part of a motion, so make the record clear at the deposition. In a split second, two things can happen at once.
Topics
Court: First Department. Year: 2026. Statutes: Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1). Result: modified.
Reviewed by Frank N. Eskesen, admitted in New York since 2000. Decided October 20, 2026. Posted October 20, 2026.
Questions about your own accident?
Call us for a free consultation. Calls answered live 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.