You are here: / / FALL ON THE SURFACE OF SCAFFOLDING NOT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1), OVERSIGHT...

FALL ON THE SURFACE OF SCAFFOLDING NOT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1), OVERSIGHT OF SITE SAFETY NOT ENOUGH FOR LABOR LAW 200 LIABILITY, SLIP AND FALL ON DUST ENTITLED PLAINTIFF TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION.

The First Department determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 241(6) cause of action. Plaintiff slipped on accumulated dust and fell to the scaffolding surface (he did not fall off the scaffolding). The Labor Law 240(1) cause of action was properly dismissed because the fall was not related to the failure to provide a safety device. The Labor Law 200 cause of action was properly dismissed because the defendant’s general oversight of the worksite did not amount to supervisory control over the means or methods of plaintiff’s work:

The Labor Law § 240(1) claim was correctly dismissed since plaintiff’s injuries “result[ed] from a separate hazard wholly unrelated to the danger that brought about the need for the safety device[s] in the first instance” … . Plaintiff does not point to any evidence that he was injured as a result of any attempts to avoid falling off the scaffold … . The accumulation of paint chips and dust on the platform on which plaintiff was working “was one of the usual and ordinary dangers at a construction site[,] to which the extraordinary protections of Labor Law § 240(1) [do not] extend” … .

The Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims were correctly dismissed since the evidence that defendant’s safety officer instructed plaintiff and his coworkers on safety rules, exercised general oversight over site safety, and conducted site walk-throughs does not establish that defendant exercised supervisory control over the means or methods of plaintiff’s work … . Serrano v Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y. Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 00003, 1st Dept 1-3-17

 

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (FALL ON THE SURFACE OF SCAFFOLDING NOT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1), OVERSIGHT OF SITE SAFETY NOT ENOUGH FOR LABOR LAW 200 LIABILITY, SLIP AND FALL ON DUST ENTITLED PLAINTIFF TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION)/DUST (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, SLIP AND FALL ON DUST ENTITLED PLAINTIFF TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION)

You might also like
DERIVATIVE SUIT AGAINST JP MORGAN CHASE STEMMING FROM SUBPRIME MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES DISMISSED.
NYC BOARD OF HEALTH PROPERLY ISSUED REGULATION REQUIRING CERTAIN RESTAURANTS TO PROVIDE INFORMATION ABOUT THE LEVEL OF SODIUM IN THE RESTAURANT FOOD.
MUNICIPAL DEFENDANTS NOT LIABLE FOR INJURY CAUSED BY BICYCLE-RIDING IN PUBLIC PARK, DESPITE REGULATIONS PROHIBITING BICYCLE-RIDING; QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE DEFENDANT HIRED TO CARE FOR THE CHILD WHO STRUCK INFANT PLAINTIFF WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE CHILD’S FATHER (RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR) OR AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR; QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE DEFENDANT CARE-GIVER WAS NEGLIGENT IN SUPERVISING THE CHILD (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE RULES OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK REQUIRED THAT TIME WARNER MAINTAIN ONLY THE AREA 12 INCHES AROUND A METAL BOX COVER IN THE SIDEWALK, THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER TIME WARNER OR A PREDECESSOR CREATED THE DEFECT OR HAD CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE DEFECT OUTSIDE THE 12 INCH AREA, SUPREME COURT REVERSED IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (FIRST DEPT).
LOSS OF RESTAURANT CUSTOMERS DUE TO COVID DOES NOT CONSTITUTE “DIRECT PHYSICAL LOSS OR DAMAGE” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE BUSINESS-INTERRUPTION INSURANCE POLICY (FIRST DEPT).
THE PROOF OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AT THE FORTHCOMING CUSTODY TRIAL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN LIMITED TO INCIDENTS OCCURRING AFTER THE HAGUE CONVENTION PROCEEDINGS IN CYPRUS (FIRST DEPT). ​
THE NYC BOARD OF HEALTH PROPERLY REFUSED TO ADD GENEALOGISTS TO THE LIST OF PERSONS WHO CAN ACCESS DEATH CERTIFICATES (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SKIER ACTED RECKLESSLY, THEREBY RENDERING THE ASSUMPTION OF RISK DOCTRINE INAPPLICABLE.

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

PLAINTIFF ALLEGED HE WAS PROVIDED WITH A DEFECTIVE LADDER, QUESTION OF FACT... FAILURE TO TIE OFF HARNESS WAS NOT THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S...