You are here: / / QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER BOARDS OR MASONITE WERE SCATTERED DEBRIS OR DELIBERATELY...

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER BOARDS OR MASONITE WERE SCATTERED DEBRIS OR DELIBERATELY PLACED AS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE RENOVATION WORK; PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION ON HIS LABOR 241(6) CAUSE OF SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether boards/Masonite on the floor of a passageway were placed there as an integral part of the renovation project or were scattered debris constituting a tripping hazard in violation of the Industrial Code (12 NYCRR 23-1.7(e)(1) or (e)(2)). The court held there was a question of fact on that issue and plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on his Labor Law 241(6) cause of action should not have been granted. The court noted that its decision to the contrary in Singh v 1221 Holdings, LLC (127 AD3d 607 [1st Dept 2015]) should no longer be followed:

Plaintiff claims that the boards were a tripping hazard and a violation of Industrial Code § 23-1.7 (e)(1) because defendants failed to provide him with a passageway free of obstructions. Defendants argue, however, that there is no liability because the boards were Masonite, not scattered materials or debris, and because they were purposefully laid out upon the floor each day, this being “integral to” the renovation work being performed.

At the outset, these arguments require us to address whether the “integral-to-the work” defense raised by defendants, but rejected by Supreme Court, equally applies to Industrial Code § 23-1.7(e)(1), as well as § 23-1.7(e)(2). We hold that it does. * * *

[The facts] raise a triable issue of fact regarding whether the boards were a “protective covering [that] had been purposefully installed on the floor as an integral part of the renovation project” … . … [S]ummary judgment in favor of plaintiff was improper because it was based on the mistaken supposition that the “integral-to-work” defense means integral to plaintiff’s specific task. The defense applies to things and conditions that are an integral part of the construction, not just to the specific task a plaintiff may be performing at the time of the accident … . Krzyzanowski v City of New York, 2020 NY Slip Op 00232, First Dept 1-14-20

 

You might also like
THE COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR ASSAULT, BATTERY AND VIOLATION OF 42 USC 1983 AGAINST POLICE OFFICERS (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S INCONSISTENT DEPOSITION TESTIMONY IN THIS STAIRWAY SLIP AND FALL CASE RAISED A CREDIBILITY QUESTION BUT DID NOT REQUIRE SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN DEFENDANT’S FAVOR; PLAINTIFF’S TESTIMONY SHE DID NOT USE THE HANDRAILS REQUIRED DISMISSAL OF THE CLAIM ALLEGING THE HANDRAILS WERE DEFECTIVE (FIRST DEPT).
STANDING ON AN INVERTED BUCKET CONSTITUTED A “PHYSICALLY SIGNIFICANT” HEIGHT-DIFFERENTIAL FOR PURPOSES OF LIABILITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1); INJURY WHILE PREVENTING A FALL IS COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1) (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6) CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF FELL OFF THE BACK OF A FLATBED TRUCK AS STEEL BEAMS WERE BEING HOISTED FROM THE TRUCK (FIRST DEPT).
IN THIS JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PROCEEDING, THE JUVENILE’S BEHAVIOR—LOOKING AT THE UNDERCOVER VEHICLE AND TURNING HIS BICYCLE AROUND—DID NOT PROVIDE THE POLICE WITH REASONABLE SUSPICION JUSTIFYING THE STREET STOP (FIRST DEPT). ​
THE FORECLOSURE ABUSE PREVENTION ACT (FAPA) APPLIES RETROACTIVELY; THE DEFENDANT MORTGAGE COMPANY IS ESTOPPED BY CPLR 213(4)(A) FROM ASSERTING THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR A FORECLOSURE HAS NOT EXPIRED; PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT SEEKING DISCHARGE AND CANCELLATION OF THE MORTGAGE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO OBTAIN EXPERT OPINION EVIDENCE CONSTITUTED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, THE CASE TURNED ON WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS INTOXICATED, THE INTOXILYZER RESULTS WERE INCONSISTENT, CONVICTION REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF INJURED BY A PORTION OF A ROOF WHICH FELL ON HIM UNEXPECTEDLY WHEN ANOTHER PORTION OF THE ROOF WAS BEING DEMOLISHED, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DENIED, PROPERTY MANAGER COULD BE LIABLE AS AGENT OF OWNER.

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

SANCTIONS IMPOSED FOR A DELAYED RESPONSE TO DISCOVERY DEMANDS WERE TOO SEVERE,... BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT EMPLOYER SUFFERED NO DAMAGE AS A RESULT OF PLAINTIFF’S...