You are here: / / EVIDENCE OF DEBRIS ON FLOOR WAS SUFFICIENT TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT...

EVIDENCE OF DEBRIS ON FLOOR WAS SUFFICIENT TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANTS WERE LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 241(6) AND 200, PLAINTIFF STEPPED INTO A HOLE BUT DID NOT KNOW WHETHER THE HOLE WAS OBSCURED BY THE DEBRIS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendants were not entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law 241(6) and Labor Law 200 causes of action. Plaintiff testified he stepped into a hole. He testified the floor was strewn with debris but he did not know if the hole was covered by debris. The court noted that a defendant need not supervise or control plaintiff’s work to be liable under Labor Law 200:

In support of his Labor Law § 241(6) claim against the owner defendants, plaintiff relies 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(e)(2), which states: “Working Areas. The parts of 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.”

… Although plaintiff could not state with certainty whether or not the garbage and debris actually covered the hole, when his extensive deposition testimony is viewed in its entirety, an inference may be drawn that strewn garbage and debris obscured his view of the floor and hid the hole from him, even if it did not actually cover it, thereby creating a hazardous condition. …

“Where an existing defect or dangerous condition caused the injury, liability [under Labor Law § 200] attaches if the owner or general contractor created the condition or had actual or constructive notice of it” … . Proof of the defendants’ supervision and control over a plaintiff’s work is not required … . Licata v AB Green Gansevoort, LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 01023, First Dept 2-13-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (EVIDENCE OF DEBRIS ON FLOOR WAS SUFFICIENT TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANTS WERE LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 241(6) AND 200, PLAINTIFF STEPPED INTO A HOLE BUT DID NOT KNOW WHETHER THE HOLE WAS OBSCURED BY THE DEBRIS (FIRST DEPT))

You might also like
Fiduciary’s Conflict of Interest Renders Transactions Voidable
Court-Ordered Period for Bringing Summary Judgment Motion Which Was Shorter than the Statutory Period Cannot Be Modified Absent Good Cause—Law Office Failure Not Enough
STRIKING THE ANSWER WAS AN APPROPRIATE REMEDY FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH MULTIPLE DISCOVERY ORDERS OVER A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS, PURELY LEGAL ISSUE RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL CAN BE CONSIDERED IF THE RECORD IS SUFFICIENT (FIRST DEPT).
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT, ENTERED BY THE CLERK AT THE DIRECTION OF THE APPELLATE COURT AFTER REVERSAL, DOES NOT BRING UP TRIAL INTERLOCUTORY RULINGS FOR APPEAL.
THE AFFIDAVIT WHICH PURPORTED TO DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF HAD STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION REFERRED TO UNIDENTIFIED AND UNPRODUCED RECORDS AND THEREFORE LACKED ANY PROBATIVE VALUE (FIRST DEPT).
PETITIONER SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN RESPONSE TO THE CITY’S RAISING AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE IN A RELATED FEDERAL ACTION.
APARTMENTS RECEIVING TAX BENEFITS PURSUANT TO RPTL 421-g ARE SUBJECT TO THE LUXURY VACANCY DECONTROL PROVISIONS OF THE NYC RENT STABILIZATION LAW AND WERE PROPERLY DEREGULATED (FIRST DEPT).
INCONSISTENCIES IN TWO FINAL RENT-ADJUSTMENT ORDERS ALLOWED RECONSIDERATION OF THE NATURE OF THE MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS [MCI’S] DESCRIBED IN THE ORDERS.

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’S DECEDENT WAS PROVIDED WITH A SAFETY LINE AND A HARNESS WHICH... tenant’s failure to report income from a new job to the new york city...