Brooklyn Workplace Accident

Worker Fell Down a Factory Elevator Shaft in Brooklyn Case

1 No. 51
Mendel Weiss et al.,
Appellants,
v.
The City of New York et al.,
Respondents, et al.,
Defendant.
2000 NY Int. 53

May 11, 2000

David Jaroslawicz, for appellants.
Submitted by Sherwin Rear, for respondent K&B Furniture.
Jonathan Inker, for respondent New York City IDA.

This appeal deals with statutory and regulatory responsibilities concerning factory elevator safety under Article 11 of the Labor Law. Plaintiff, an employee at a furniture factory in the Bronx, was seriously injured when he fell down a factory elevator shaft that he claims was maintained in violation of applicable safety requirements. The issue before us is whether the defendant-building owner is statutorily liable for plaintiff's injuries even though it did not operate the factory. We hold that it is not.

In 1986, third-party defendant K&B Furniture Warehouse entered into a sale and leaseback agreement with defendant, the New York City Industrial Development Agency ("NYCIDA"), in connection with the subject building. Under this arrangement, K&B received financing by tendering title of the building to NYCIDA and then leasing it back from NYCIDA. It is undisputed that NYCIDA had no involvement in or responsibility for the operation, maintenance or control of the building.

In his action against NYCIDA, plaintiff alleged that, as "owner" of the building, NYCIDA was liable for failing to comply with various elevator safety regulations promulgated by the Board of Standards and Appeals pursuant to Labor Law § 255.[1] NYCIDA moved for dismissal, arguing that responsibility for observance of elevator safety regulations falls solely to the operator of the factory and that a non-operating owner is not statutorily liable. Supreme Court granted NYCIDA's motion to dismiss and the Appellate Division affirmed. Having granted leave, we affirm as well.

The regulation upon which plaintiff relies is therefore invalid insofar as it conflicts with Labor Law § 316(1) by imposing liability on non-operating owners. Our conclusion is fortified by comparing sections 316(1) and 316(2). In enacting section 316(2), the Legislature provided that non-operating "owners" are ultimately responsible for complying with Article 11 only if their buildings are "tenant-factory buildings." Because a tenant-factory building -- in contrast to the building in this case -- is shared by multiple occupants, it is apparent that the Legislature went out of its way to impose liability on the owner to assure uniformity in compliance and accountability. Were we to conclude otherwise, section 316's distinction between tenant- factory owners and other factory owners (as NYCIDA, here) would be rendered meaningless.

Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

Order affirmed, with costs. Opinion by Judge Rosenblatt. Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Bellacosa, Smith, Levine, Ciparick and Wesley concur.

Decided May 11, 2000

See this case in full:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/htm_hl?DB=NYCTAP&STEMMER=en&WORDS=factori
+injuri+&COLOUR=Red&STYLE=es&URL=http://www.law.cornell.edu/ny/ctap/I00_0053.
htm#muscat_highlighter_first_match