You are here: / / Questions of Fact Raised About Labor Law 240(1), 240(6) and 200 Causes...

Questions of Fact Raised About Labor Law 240(1), 240(6) and 200 Causes of Action—Labor Law 200 Actions Are Not Limited to Construction Work (Question of Fact About Unsafe Work Site Will Support Labor Law 200 Cause of Action)

The Fourth Department noted that Labor Law 200 causes of action are not limited to construction work and, with respect to one of the defendants,  a question of fact had been raised about the safety of the work site.  Plaintiff was injured when he drove a forklift over plywood covering a pit used to store linens in an industrial laundry operation. Questions of fact had also been raised about whether work being done by the plaintiff was covered by Labor Law 240(1) and Labor Law 240 (6). With respect to the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action against two of the defendants, the court wrote:

…[T]he court properly denied [defendants’] respective motions for summary judgment with respect to the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim because there are issues of fact whether plaintiff was engaged in an activity covered by that section. To fall under the protection of Labor Law § 240 (1), “the task in which an injured employee was engaged must have been performed during the erection, demolition, repairing, [or] altering . . . of a building or structure’ ” or must have “involve[d] . . . such activities” … . Here, the parties’ submissions raise an issue of fact whether plaintiff himself was “altering” or making a “significant physical change to the configuration or composition of the building or structure” at the time of his injury … . Specifically, the record is unclear whether plaintiff was in the process of simply moving a “towel folder,” which would not afford him the protection of section 240 (1) …, unless that activity “was . . . ancillary” to the ongoing renovation work … ; or, whether he was removing an old machine weighing approximately 1,000 pounds and then installing and securing to the cement floor a new machine as a replacement, which would afford him the protection of section 240 (1) … . Foots v Consolidated Bldg Contrs Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 05058, 4th Dept 7-3-14

 

You might also like
FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO CONDITION VISITATION UPON FATHER’S PARTICIPATION IN MENTAL HEALTH COUNSELING; THEREFORE FATHER’S PETITION TO MODIFY CUSTODY AND VISITATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON THE GROUND THAT ORDER HAD BEEN VIOLATED (FOURTH DEPT).
Mother’s Actions and Mental Health Issues Did Not Warrant a Finding of Neglect
THE CONTEMPT FINDING AND THE $535,000 FINE WERE BASED ON AN ORDER WHICH SUPREME COURT DID NOT HAVE THE JURISDICTION TO ISSUE (FOURTH DEPT).
DENIAL OF FATHER’S PETITION FOR CUSTODY WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT).
THE JUDGE’S ASSESSING SORA RISK-LEVEL POINTS NOT REQUESTED BY THE PEOPLE VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW; THE JUDGE FAILED TO MAKE THE FINDINGS REQUIRED BY THE CORRECTION LAW FOR AN UPWARD DEPARTURE; DETERMINATION VACATED (FOURTH DEPT).
ATTEMPT TO FILE AND SERVE AN AMENDED SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT WAS UNTIMELY AND THE RELATION BACK DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY, TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT DISAGREED ON THE RELATION-BACK AND SEVERAL OTHER SUBSTANTIVE PROCEDURAL ISSUES (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S PRE-MIRANDA STATEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED, DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED HE WAS NOT COMPETENT TO TESTIFY AT THE GRAND JURY, HIS GRAND JURY TESTIMONY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT). ​
THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST A FIRST-YEAR RESIDENT, WHO DID NOT EXERCISE INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT IN FOLLOWING THE DIRECTION OF HIS SUPERVISORS TO DISCONTINUE A MEDICATION, SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMSSED; THE DISSENT DISAGREED (FOURTH DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Plaintiff’s Labor Law 240 and 200 Actions Against the Town Should Have... Cleaning Cement Truck After Cement-Delivery Not Covered by Labor Law 240