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
Twenty-Day Time-Limit for Making an Application to Stay Arbitration Starts When the Notice or Demand for Arbitration Is Received, Not When It Is Mailed/An Application for a Stay of Arbitration Is “Made” When It Is Filed/Appellate Court May Consider a Purely Legal Issue Raised for the First Time on Appeal
DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE FROM LEVEL TWO TO LEVEL ONE IN THIS CHILD PORNOGRAPHY CASE (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT DID NOT DENY ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT WHICH ALLEGED GENERAL JURISDICTION OVER THE DEFENDANT, THEREFORE JURISDICTION WAS CONFERRED ON THE COURT, THE MECHANICS OF SUCCESSFULLY DENYING JURISDICTION EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT).
Supreme Court Erred When It Ruled Plaintiff Had “Defaulted” on Its Summary Judgment Motion by Failing to Appear for Oral Argument
A DEFENDANT WHO HAS WAIVED INDICTMENT CANNOT PLEAD GUILTY TO A SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION (SCI) WHICH INCLUDES AN OFFENSE GREATER THAN ANY CHARGED IN THE CORRESPONDING FELONY COMPLAINT (FIRST DEPT).
AFTER FINDING SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE BY DEFENDANTS, THE JUDGE FASHIONED AN ADVERSE INFERENCE JURY INSTRUCTION TO BE GIVEN AT TRIAL; THE CHARGE IMPROPERLY REQUIRED, RATHER THAN PERMITTED, THE JURY TO FIND SPOLIATION; THE JUDGE WAS ORDERED TO REVISE THE CHARGE (FIRST DEPT).
Motion for Leave to File Late Notice of Claim Properly Denied—Injuries to Infant Plaintiff Consistent with Premature Birth
Out-of-Possession Landlord Not Liable for Injury Caused by Trash Compactor on Property

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

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...