You are here: / / BOARDING UP A VACANT HOUSE WAS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF LABOR LAW 240(1) AND...

BOARDING UP A VACANT HOUSE WAS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s work, boarding up a vacant house to prevent access, was within the scope of work covered by Labor Law 240 (1) and Labor Law 241(6). Plaintiff allegedly fell from a ladder when attempting to board up a window:

… [P]laintiff’s work of boarding up the house, thus making it uninhabitable, was “altering” the premises within the meaning of Labor Law § 240(1), as it constituted a significant physical change to the configuration or composition of the building … .. Further, as the work the plaintiff was engaged in constituted “alteration,” it was within the scope of “construction work” for purposes of Labor Law § 241(6) … . Nucci v County of Suffolk, 2022 NY Slip Op 02423, Second Dept 4-13-22

​Practice Point: Boarding up a vacant house is covered by Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6).

 

You might also like
“NOTWITHSTANDING” CLAUSE IN THE ADDENDUM TO THE NOTE CONTROLS, THE ADDENDUM REQUIRED THAT THE MONTHLY PAYMENTS ON THE NOTE START BEFORE THE DATE DESCRIBED IN THE NOTE ITSELF (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT PRESENTED SUFFICIENT PROOF SHE DID NOT LIVE AT THE ADDRESS WHERE THE FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT WAS SERVED TO WARRANT A HEARING; THERE WAS NO SHOWING THAT HER FAILURE TO UPDATE HER ADDRESS WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES WAS TO PREVENT SERVICE (SECOND DEPT).
ALLEGEDLY OPERATING A TREE-TRIMMING BUSINESS WITHOUT A LICENSE AND ENTRUSTING THE TREE-TRIMMING TRUCK TO PLAINTIFF’S CO-WORKER, IF NEGLIGENT, WERE NOT PROXIMATE CAUSES OF PLAINTIFF’S INJURY, THE DANGEROUS CONDITION ON THE TRUCK WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S INJURY WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS, AND THE ACCIDENT WAS AN ‘EXTRAORDINARY OCCURRENCE,’ SO THERE WAS NO DUTY TO WARN (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE ALLEGED DEFENDANT DRIVER WAS DEFENDANT COMPANY’S EMPLOYEE AND WAS ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT; DEFENDANT COMPANY FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THE DRIVER WAS AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR, NOT AN EMPLOYEE; THE FACT THAT THE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT USES THE TERM “INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR” IS NOT DISPOSITIVE OF THE ISSUE (SECOND DEPT). ​
Evidence of Photo-Array Identification Properly Allowed to Counter Inference Line-Up Was Suggestive (Defendant Restrained in Line-Up)
THE ZONING BOARD’S DENIAL OF A STREET FRONTAGE VARIANCE WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY SPECIFIC FACTUAL FINDINGS MAKING COURT-REVIEW IMPOSSIBLE; MATTER REMITTED TO THE BOARD (SECOND DEPT).
SENDING THE 90-DAY FORECLOSURE NOTICE TO TWO BORROWERS IN THE SAME ENVELOPE DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304, WHICH IS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO A FORECLOSURE ACTION; BECAUSE THE NOTICE WAS NOT SENT TO EACH BORROWER IN A SEPARATE ENVELOPE THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A PIECE OF A BUILDING FACADE WHICH CAME LOOSE; PLAINTIFF SUED TWO DEFENDANTS WHO HAD DONE WORK IN THE ROADWAY NEAR THE BUILDING, ALLEGING THE EXCAVATION LOOSENED THE FACADE MATERIAL; DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND 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

DEFENDANTS WERE UNABLE TO COMPLETE DISCOVERY BECAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S ILLNESS... PLAINTIFF SUED BOTH THE COUNTY AND THE SHERIFF FOR ALLEGED EXPOSURE TO CONTAMINATED...