You are here: / / PLAINTIFF’S WORK, DELIVERING TILES TO THE WORK SITE, WAS COVERED...

PLAINTIFF’S WORK, DELIVERING TILES TO THE WORK SITE, WAS COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1) AS “NECESSARY AND INCIDENTAL” TO THE PROTECTED CONSTRUCTION-ACTIVITY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s work, delivering tiles to the construction site, was covered by Labor Law 240(1). Therefore plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment for injury suffered after stepping in the two-foot-deep hole near the loading ramp:

Labor Law § 240(1) protects persons engaged “in the erection, demolition, repairing, altering, painting, cleaning or pointing of a building or structure.” The task that a plaintiff is performing at the exact moment of their accident is not dispositive of whether they were engaged in a protected activity for purposes of liability under this statute … . Rather, the inquiry includes whether the plaintiff’s employer was contracted to perform the kind of work enumerated in the statutes … and whether the plaintiff was performing work “necessary and incidental to” a protected activity … . Because plaintiff’s work in delivering and unloading tiles to be used in the activity covered by Labor Law § 240(1) was “necessary and incidental” to the protected activity, he was within the class of workers protected by those statues, notwithstanding that he was not assigned to participate in the installation of the tiles … . Rodriguez v Riverside Ctr. Site 5 Owner LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 00411, First Dept 1-28-25

Practice Point: Although plaintiff was not involved in installation of the tiles, delivery of the tiles to the work site was a protected activity pursuant to Labor Law 240(1) as “necessary and incidental” to the installation.

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR SEXUAL ORIENTATION-BASED DISCRIMINATION, DEFENDANT’S ARGUMENT THERE WAS A NON-DISCRIMINATORY REASON FOR ADVERSE ACTION SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED IN A CPLR 3211 (a)(7) MOTION TO DISMISS.
MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED ON THE GROUND THAT DEFENDANT LACKED STANDING, OTHER GROUNDS FOR SUPPRESSION NOT RAISED BELOW COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED ON APPEAL, DEFENSE COUNSEL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PRECLUDED FROM CROSS-EXAMINING A POLICE OFFICER ABOUT A CIVIL SUIT AGAINST HIM (FIRST DEPT).
Plaintiffs, Who Provided Management Services to a Club Described in the Media as “Run by the Mafia,” Did Not Raise a Question of Fact About Whether the Remark Was “Of and Concerning” the Plaintiffs by “Innuendo”
Wrong Incident-Address in Notice of Claim (Not Intended to Mislead and Not Resulting in Prejudice to Defendant) Can Be Corrected​
ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT DIRECTORS ON THE BOARD OF GEROVA DID NOT RESIDE OR DO BUSINESS IN NEW YORK, OTHER GEROVA DEFENDANTS PARTICIPATED IN THE FRAUDULENT SCHEME IN NEW YORK, THEREBY PROVIDING A SUFFICIENT BASIS FOR LONG-ARM JURISDICTION (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT CONSTRUCTION MANAGER WAS A STATUTORY AGENT OF THE OWNER AND WAS THEREFORE LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S INJURY PURSUANT TO LABOR LAW 240 (1); THE ARTICULATING LIFT USED BY PLAINTIFF WAS A SAFETY DEVICE WHICH FAILED TO ADEQUATELY PROTECT AGAINST AN ELEVATION-RELATED RISK (FIRST DEPT).
PUTBACK ACTION STEMMING FROM THE PURCHASE OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES SURVIVED MOTIONS TO DISMISS.
Party Who Was Both a Plaintiff and a Defendant in a Joint Trial of Two Actions Was Properly Allowed to Have Two Attorneys

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

IT WAS SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED THE RELEASE WAS INDUCED BY FRAUD; THE COMPLAINT... EVEN THOUGH THE COOPERATIVE LANDLORD WON IN THE UNDERLYING LITIGATION AGAINST...