You are here: / / Summary Judgment Properly Granted in Labor Law 241 (6) Cause of Action/Although...
,

Summary Judgment Properly Granted in Labor Law 241 (6) Cause of Action/Although Not Demonstrated Here, the Court Noted that Comparative Negligence Is a Valid Defense to a Labor Law 241 (6) Action

The Second Department determined summary judgment was properly awarded to plaintiff in his Labor Law 241(6) cause of action. Plaintiff was impaled on an uncapped piece of vertical rebar.  (Although not the case here, the court noted that plaintiff's comparative negligence is a valid defense in a Labor Law 241 (6) action.):

Labor Law § 241(6) imposes a nondelegable duty of reasonable care upon owners and contractors to provide reasonable and adequate protection and safety to persons employed in, or lawfully frequenting, all areas in which construction, excavation or demolition work is being performed … . The provision requires owners and contractors to comply with specific safety rules and regulations promulgated by the Commissioner of the Department of Labor … . The particular safety rule or regulation relied upon by a plaintiff must mandate compliance with concrete specifications, and not simply set forth general safety standards … . Comparative negligence is a valid defense to a Labor Law § 241(6) cause of action … .

Here, the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 241(6) was predicated on Industrial Code § 23-1.7(e)(2) (12 NYCRR 23-1.7[e][2]), which provides that “floors, platforms and similar areas where persons work or pass shall be kept free from accumulations of dirt and debris and from scattered tools and materials and from sharp projections insofar as may be consistent with the work being performed” (12 NYCRR 23-1.7[e][2]). Industrial Code § 23-1.7(e)(2) (12 NYCRR 23.17[e][2]) is sufficiently specific to support a cause of action to recover damages pursuant to Labor Law § 241(6) … . However, it has no application where the object that caused the plaintiff's injury was an integral part of the work being performed … .

Here, the plaintiff established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability on the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 241(6) by showing that there was a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(e)(2) and that such violation was a proximate cause of his injuries … . In opposition, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to their allegation that the uncapped rebar was an integral part of the work that was not subject to the cited regulation …, or as to whether the plaintiff's own negligence contributed to the accident … . Lopez v NYC Dept of Envtl Protection, 2014 NY Slip Op 08963, 2nd Dept 12-24-14

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF BANK MOVED FOR AN ORDER OF REFERENCE WITHIN ONE YEAR; DESPITE THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE MOTION, THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, SUA SPONTE, PURSUANT TO CPLR 3215 (SECOND DEPT).
COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONVERTED THE MOTION TO DISMISS TO A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, BANK’S LETTER SEEKING TO REVOKE THE ACCELERATION OF THE MORTGAGE BEFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR A FORECLOSURE ACTION RAN OUT WAS NOT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE UPON WHICH A MOTION TO DISMISS COULD BE BASED (SECOND DEPT).
A TREE IS NOT A “BUILDING OR STRUCTURE” WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240 (1); THEREFORE PLAINTIFF’S INJURY, INCURRED WHILE CUTTING A LIMB OFF A TREE, WAS NOT COVERED BY THE LABOR LAW (SECOND DEPT).
PROSECUTOR’S UNTRUE CLAIM, MADE IN SUMMATION, THAT DEFENDANT’S DNA WAS FOUND ON THE WEAPON USED IN THE SHOOTING REQUIRED REVERSAL (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT DID NOT LAY A FOUNDATION FOR AN OPINION ABOUT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S INJURY, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Cross-Examination About Omission from Witness’ Statement to Police Should Have Been Allowed
33 HOUR DELAY IN ARRAIGNMENT, UNDER THE FACTS, DID NOT RENDER STATEMENT INVOLUNTARILY MADE.
PLAINTIFF, A SWIMMING OFFICIAL, SLIPPED ON WATER ON A POOL DECK AT AN INDOOR SWIMMING FACILITY; THE WATER ON THE POOL DECK CAME FROM AN OVERHEAD DEHUMIDIFICATION SYSTEM, NOT FROM SPLASHES FROM THE POOL; THE WATER WAS NOT NECESSARILY INCIDENTAL TO THE USE OF THE POOL AND THE ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY; THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND 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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Failure to Notify Insured of Change in Coverage for Fire Insurance (In Violation... Supreme Court Erred In Refusing to Appoint a Guardian—However, Petitioner...