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
CITY’S DECISION TO LAYOFF FIREFIGHTERS IS NOT ARBITRABLE UNDER A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT, PUBLIC POLICY VESTS NONDELEGABLE DISCRETION TO HIRE AND FIRE IN THE PUBLIC CORPORATION (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER EMPLOYER VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR NEGLIGENCE OF AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR.
PETITION TO DEEM A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM TIMELY SERVED SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE CITY’S KNOWLEDGE OF THE CROSSWALK DEFECT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE IS NOT EQUIVALENT TO TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE NATURE OF PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM (SECOND DEPT).
PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT WARRANTED REVERSAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
PLAINTIFF STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR VIOLATION OF LABOR LAW 196-d AGAINST A CORPORATE OFFICER AND A SHAREHOLDER INDIVIDUALLY FOR FAILING TO REMIT SERVICE CHARGES AND GRATUITIES TO THEIR WAITSTAFF EMPLOYEES; REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION TO SEEK CLASS CERTIFICATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; PLAINTIFF’S DISCOVERY DEMANDS WERE PALPABLY IMPROPER (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS BUS-PASSENGER INJURY CASE, THE BUS DRIVER RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE APPLIED; THE BUS STRUCK A VEHICLE WHICH STOPPED SUDDENLY AFTER IT WAS CUT OFF BY A THIRD VEHICLE; THE BUS DRIVER’S AFFIDAVIT WAS SUPPORTED BY SURVEILLANCE VIDEO (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT SUBMIT SUFFICIENT PROOF OF ITS STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
Civil Versus Criminal Contempt Explained in Context of Imposition of Fines or Monetary Penalties

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...