Sahota v. Celaj

Ellerin, J.P. and Lerner, J.,

dissent in a memorandum by Ellerin, J.P. as follows: I would affirm on the ground that the fire escape was a “safety device” within the purview of Labor Law § 240 (1) by virtue of the fact that plaintiffs employer directed him to use it to descend from the scaffold (see Acosta v Kent Bentley Apts., 298 AD2d 124, 125 [2002] [since fire escape platforms and ladders were being used “to provide access to different elevation levels for the worker and his materials, the ladder whose fall occasioned plaintiffs injury is properly viewed as a safety device”]). Inasmuch as…