You are here: / / PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENGAGED IN CONSTRUCTION WORK OR IN A CONSTRUCTION AREA...

PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENGAGED IN CONSTRUCTION WORK OR IN A CONSTRUCTION AREA WHEN HE WAS INJURED, HE WAS BRINGING IN SUPPLIES WHICH WERE BEING STOCKPILED AND WERE NOT FOR IMMEDIATE USE, THEREFORE THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6) CAUSES OF ACTION WERE PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the owner of the building (Sussex) and plaintiff’s employer (Berkoff) were entitled to summary judgment in this Labor Law 240 (1), 241 (6) and 200 action. Plaintiff was injured when he fell bringing in boxes of tile and thin set using a hand truck. Plaintiff was not performing construction work within the mean of Labor Law 240 (1) and 241 (6) because the material he was bringing in were not for immediate use. Both defendants established they did not supervise plaintiff’s work or have notice of any dangerous condition:

Sussex and Berkoff each established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the causes of action alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) insofar as asserted against Sussex. The evidence supporting the motions established that at the time of the accident, the plaintiff was not engaged in construction work within the meaning of Labor Law § 240(1), and was not working in a construction area within the meaning of Labor Law § 241(6), since the building materials were not being “readied for immediate use” … , but were instead being “stockpil[ed] for future use” … . …

Sussex and Berkoff each established, prima facie, both that Sussex did not create or have actual or constructive notice of the alleged condition which caused the plaintiff’s injury, and that it did not supervise or control the means and methods of the plaintiff’s work … . Kusayev v Sussex Apts. Assoc., LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 05458, Second Dept 7-25-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENGAGED IN CONSTRUCTION WORK OR IN A CONSTRUCTION AREA WHEN HE WAS INJURED, HE WAS BRINGING IN SUPPLIES WHICH WERE BEING STOCKPILED AND WERE NOT FOR IMMEDIATE USE, THEREFORE THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6) CAUSES OF ACTION WERE PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/CONSTRUCTION (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENGAGED IN CONSTRUCTION WORK OR IN A CONSTRUCTION AREA WHEN HE WAS INJURED, HE WAS BRINGING IN SUPPLIES WHICH WERE BEING STOCKPILED AND WERE NOT FOR IMMEDIATE USE, THEREFORE THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6) CAUSES OF ACTION WERE PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
UNDER A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS, THE PEOPLE DID NOT DISPROVE DEFENDANT’S AGENCY DEFENSE; THE VERDICT WAS REPUGNANT IN THAT GUILTY AND NOT GUILTY FINDINGS CAN NOT BE RECONCILED (SECOND DEPT).
Criteria for Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Cause of Action (Where Documentary Evidence Submitted) Explained—Criteria for Motion to Dismiss Based on Documentary Evidence Explained—Pleading Requirements for Legal Malpractice Explained
RECORDS OF POLICE DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS WHICH DID NOT RESULT IN DISCIPLINARY ACTION ARE PROPER SUBJECTS OF A FOIL REQUEST (SECOND DEPT). ​
SORA Applies to Out of State Sex Offense
COUNTY NOT LIABLE IN THIS INMATE-ON-INMATE THIRD PARTY ASSAULT CASE (SECOND DEPT).
CITY, AS THE OWNER OF THE MARINA WITH RIPARIAN RIGHTS, WAS ENTITLED TO EJECT DEFENDANTS WHO WERE USING AN INOPERABLE VESSEL AS A HOUSEBOAT DOCKED AT THE MARINA (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT IN THIS DENTAL MALPRACTICE ACTION WAS CONCLUSORY AND SPECULATIVE AND THEREFORE DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT; DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED THE PERFORMED PROCEDURE WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S INJURY, THEREBY NEGATING THE “LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT” CAUSE OF ACTION; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE SEARCHED THE RECORD AND, SUA SPONTE, GRANTED RELIEF NOT REQUESTED IN THE MOTION PAPERS, INCLUDING THE APPLICATION OF THE RES IPSA LOQUITUR DOCTRINE (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

DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS NOT INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILURE TO MOVE TO SUPPRESS THE RESULTS... EIGHT YEAR OLD STUDENT MISSED HIS BUS AND WAS ALLEGEDLY TOLD BY A SCHOOL EMPLOYEE...