You are here: / / PLAINTIFF FELL LEAVING AN ELEVATOR HE HAD JUST MODIFIED TO PREVENT ACCESS...

PLAINTIFF FELL LEAVING AN ELEVATOR HE HAD JUST MODIFIED TO PREVENT ACCESS TO A FLOOR; HIS WORK WAS NOT ROUTINE MAINTENANCE; INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISIONS ABOUT GUARDING HAZARDOUS OPENINGS APPLIED; ONE DEFENDANT MAY BE LIABLE AS A STATUTORY AGENT; LABOR LAW 200, 240(1) AND 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined: (1) plaintiff’s work on the elevator was not routine maintenance and therefore Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) were applicable; (2) the Labor Law 241(6) cause of action based on Industrial Code provisions requiring the guarding of hazardous openings should not have been dismissed; and (3) there are questions of fact whether one defendant, Edge, based on a subcontract, was liable as a statutory agent under Labor Law 200, 240(1) and 241(6):

Plaintiff and a coworker lowered a building’s freight elevator into the basement to allow plaintiff to perform work on top of the elevator. Plaintiff testified that he spent about 40 minutes performing that work, which involved making changes to the elevator in order to prevent people from accessing a first-floor renovation site by means of the elevator’s rear door. The elevator’s front door opened onto an outdoor area. After performing this task, plaintiff claims that he tripped on a wooden ramp, which led from a loading dock to the elevator, and fell. …

… [P]laintiff was engaged in altering the premises within the meaning of Labor Law § 240(1), since his work was intended to secure the premises in preparation for the renovation project … .

The Labor Law § 241(6) claim should be reinstated insofar as it is based on alleged violations of Industrial Code §§ 23-1.7(b)(1)(i) and 23-1.15(a), since there are issues of fact as to whether plaintiff’s accident was proximately caused by the lack of a compliant “safety railing” guarding the “hazardous opening,” and it is undisputed that the opening was not “guarded by a substantial cover fastened in place” (12 NYCRR § 23-1.7[b][1][i]). …

… [T]here is testimonial evidence that the subcontract made Edge responsible for performing all aspects of the sidewalk excavation, including safety procedures. Moreover, there are issues of fact as to whether Edge created or had notice of the defective condition that caused plaintiff to fall into the excavation hole … . Rooney v D.P. Consulting Corp., 2022 NY Slip Op 02243, First Dept 4-5-22

Practice Point: This case found that a subcontractor responsible for safety procedures could be liable as a statutory agent under Labor Law 200, 240(1) and 241(6).

 

You might also like
International Bank With a Branch in New York Was Required to Comply with an Information Subpoena—“Separate Entity Rule” Which Prevents New York Courts from Enforcing Restraining Notices and Turnover Orders Directed to Branches of Foreign Banks Located Outside New York, Does Not Prevent New York Courts from Directing the New York Branch of a Foreign Bank to Comply with an Information Subpoena, Even though the Information Sought Relates to Foreign Branches–The Information Sought Is Available Through Electronic Searches Made by the New York Branch of the Bank
PETITIONERS’ EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION AND RETALIATION CLAIMS UNDER THE STATE AND CITY HUMAN RIGHTS LAW AGAINST THE NYC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
PURCHASING AND FORECLOSING ON MORTGAGES IN NEW YORK DOES NOT CONSTITUTE “DOING BUSINESS IN NEW YORK” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY LAW; THE LLC CANNOT SUE IN NEW YORK (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT AND DEFENSE COUNSEL ENTITLED TO NOTICE AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD IN OPPOSITION TO A WARRANT APPLICATION FOR THE COLLECTION OF DNA EVIDENCE, YOUTUBE VIDEO NOT PROPERLY AUTHENTICATED (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN THE CEILING COLLAPSED WHILE HE WAS TAKING OUT WALLS, THE LABOR LAW 240(1), 241(6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
FURTIVE MOVEMENTS JUSTIFIED POLICE OFFICER’S LIMITED SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S CAR, USE OF BANK CARD READER ON CARDS IN DEFENDANT’S POSSESSION DID NOT REQUIRE A SEARCH WARRANT (FIRST DEPT).
Trial Court’s Questioning Jury Whether It Had Reached a Verdict on Any Counts and Its Acceptance of a Partial Verdict Okay
THE DEFENDANT ARGUED A 2022 US SUPREME COURT RULING FINDING NEW YORK’S FIREARM LICENSING REQUIREMENT UNCONSITUTIONAL RENDERED THE POSSESSION-OF-A-WEAPON STATUTE TO WHICH HE PLED GUILTY IN 2016 UNCONSTITUTIONAL; THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED BECAUSE IT WAS NOT RAISED IN THE TRIAL COURT IN 2016 (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

BOTH THE INDICTMENT AND THE SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION CHARGED CRIMES WITH THE... THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE INQUIRED FURTHER WHEN SEVERAL PROSPECTIVE JURORS INDICATED...