You are here: / / UNLOADING STEEL PLATES USED TO COVER EXCAVATED AREAS AT A CONSTRUCTION...

UNLOADING STEEL PLATES USED TO COVER EXCAVATED AREAS AT A CONSTRUCTION SITE WAS A COVERED ACTIVITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined plaintiff was properly awarded summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action. Plaintiff was injured unloading a two-ton steel plate used to cover excavated areas at a construction site. The defendant’s argument that the plate was not unloaded for construction work. but rather for storage, was rejected:

Plaintiff made a prima facie showing that the work he was performing as an employee of Clean at the time of his accident was covered under section 240(1). There is no dispute that plaintiff was injured in the course of unloading an approximately two-ton steel plate at a construction site owned by defendant Con Ed, after transporting the plate to the site by truck. Witnesses consistently indicated that Clean routinely unloaded steel plates at the site for the purpose of covering areas excavated for electrical work. Clean performed this work pursuant to a contract that required it to provide steel plates at excavation sites owned by defendant including the subject site, and also required Clean to perform work ancillary to other tasks enumerated under Labor Law § 240(1) such as removing construction-related debris and installing barricades for excavation work … . Moreover, plaintiff performed this work on an active construction site while another worker on the site was building a removable roof for a transformer vault.

Clean failed to raise triable issues of fact as to whether plaintiff’s work was covered by Labor Law § 240(1). It does not avail Clean to assert that plaintiff unloaded the plate merely for the purpose of storage. The Court of Appeals has rejected an interpretation of Labor Law § 240(1) that “would compartmentalize a plaintiff’s activity and exclude from the statute’s coverage preparatory work essential to the enumerated act” … . Saquicaray v Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 02460, First Dept 4-2-19

 

You might also like
IN A RARE REVERSAL OF A BENCH TRIAL ON EVIDENTIARY GROUNDS, THE 1ST DEPT DETERMINED FOUR OUT-OF-COURT STATEMENTS ALLEGEDLY MADE BY THE VICTIM IN THIS SEXUAL-OFFENSE CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED UNDER THE “EXCITED UTTERANCE” OR “PROMPT OUTCRY” THEORIES; THE COURT NOTED THAT ONLY THE FACT OF THE COMPLAINT, NOT THE ACCOMPANYING DETAILS, ARE ADMISSIBLE AS A “PROMPT OUTCRY” (FIRST DEPT). ​
THE SMALL CONCRETE PEBBLES UPON WHICH PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY SLIPPED DID NOT CONSTITUTE A “SLIPPERY CONDITION” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE INDUSTRIAL CODE AND WERE NOT IN A “PASSAGEWAY” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE INDUSTRIAL CODE; THE LABOR LAW 241(6) ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
RESPONDENT CITY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE FOIL REQUEST WOULD INTERFERE WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT OR JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS OR WOULD REVEAL A CONFIDENTIAL SOURCE; MATTER REMITTED FOR IN CAMERA REVIEW TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE FOIL REQUEST WAS PROTECTED BY THE INTER- OR INTRA- AGENCY MATERIALS EXEMPTION (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR SPECIFIED DISCOVERY IN OPPOSITION TO AN “ANTI-SLAPP-LAW” MOTION TO DISMISS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT). ​
LEASE WITH PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER DID NOT REQUIRE LANDLORD TO MAINTAIN THE YARD OUTSIDE THE BUILDING, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN HE STEPPED INTO A HOLE DUG BY PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER IN THE YARD, LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
Failure to Wear Hard Hat Does Not Preclude 240(1) Claim
The Agency’s Determination Was Based Upon Its Own Precedents and Related Jurisprudence and Was Therefore “Rationally Based”—The Determination Should Not, Therefore, Be Disturbed by a Court—A Court May Not Substitute Its Own Judgment for that of the Agency
PROPRIETARY LEASE PROVISION ALLOWING THE LANDLORD TO RECOVER ATTORNEY’S FEES EVEN WHEN THE LANDLORD IS IN DEFAULT IS UNCONSCIONABLE AND UNENFORCEABLE (FIRST 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

THERE WAS CONFLICTING EVIDENCE WHETHER PLAINTIFF, WHO HAD NO MEMORY OF THE ACCIDENT,... MISSING CHAIR IN FRONT OF A SLOT MACHINE IS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND NONACTIONABLE,...