You are here: / / A TREE IS NOT A “BUILDING OR STRUCTURE” WITHIN THE MEANING...
, ,

A TREE IS NOT A “BUILDING OR STRUCTURE” WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240 (1); THEREFORE PLAINTIFF’S INJURY, INCURRED WHILE CUTTING A LIMB OFF A TREE, WAS NOT COVERED BY THE LABOR LAW (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff’s injury while he was cutting a tree was not covered by Labor Law 240 (1). Plaintiff, a county parks department employee, argued that the tree cutting and removal was part of a larger construction project, i.e., setting up a holiday light show:

“Labor Law § 240(1) imposes upon owners and general contractors, and their agents, a nondelegable duty to provide safety devices necessary to protect workers from risks inherent in elevated work sites” … . The statute “applies where an employee is engaged ‘in the erection, demolition, repairing, altering, painting, cleaning or pointing of a building or structure'” … . “[T]ree cutting and removal, in and of themselves, are not activities subject to Labor Law § 240(1). Those activities are generally excluded from statutory protection because a tree is not a building or structure, as contemplated by the statute but, rather, ‘a product of nature'” … .

Here, the defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240(1) by submitting evidence demonstrating that, at the time of his accident, the plaintiff was engaged in tree cutting and removal, which “constituted routine maintenance outside of a construction or renovation context” … . In support of its motion, the defendant submitted, inter alia, transcripts of the deposition testimony of James Leonard, the director of general maintenance for the Department, and Russell Argila, a senior maintenance mechanic in the general maintenance department. Leonard testified that, on the date of the accident, the plaintiff and his coworkers were engaged in “thinning out, pruning trees, dead branches along . . . [a] hillside,” and that the tree the plaintiff was cutting at the time of his accident was part of that work. Argila testified that the tree crew, of which the plaintiff was a member, was “coming up there to clean it up, to do their normal tree work,” and denied that the purpose of the tree work was to prepare for the installation of the [light show]. Peterkin v Westchester Parks Found., Inc., 2026 NY Slip Op 00268, Second Dept 1-21-26

Practice Point: Here tree cutting and removal was deemed “routine maintenance” which was not covered by Labor Law 240 (1) because a tree is not a “building of structure.”

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF WAS A CO-PILOT OF A HELICOPTER USED TO PROVIDE AN AERIAL PLATFORM FOR WORK ON POWER LINES; THE HELICOPTER STRUCK A POWER LINE AND PLAINTIFF JUMPED FROM THE HELICOPTER FROM A HEIGHT OF 75 FEET; THE LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) STRICT LIABILITY CAUSES OF ACTION WERE PREEMPTED BY THE FEDERAL AVIATION ACT (FAA); THE LABOR LAW 200 AND NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; RATHER THE FEDERAL STANDARD OF CARE SHOULD BE APPLIED TO THOSE CAUSES OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE APPLICABLE STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS FOR DECLARATORY-JUDGMENT CAUSES OF ACTION DEPEND ON THE NATURE OF THE UNDERLYING ALLEGATIONS; HERE THE ALLEGATIONS SOUNDED IN FRAUD, UNJUST ENRICHMENT AND VIOLATIONS OF THE REAL PROPERTY LAW; ALL WERE TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).
INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION REQUIRING THAT SAFETY DEVICES BE KEPT SOUND AND OPERABLE CONSTITUTED A CONCRETE PREDICATE FOR A LABOR LAW 241 (6) CAUSE OF ACTION WHICH ALLEGED INJURY DUE TO THE ABSENCE OF A “PROTECTOR” ON A GRINDER.
CONCLUSORY AND UNSUBSTANTIATED ALLEGATION OF LAW OFFICE FAILURE DID NOT JUSTIFY VACATING THE DISMISSAL OF THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
FATHER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HIS CONSENT TO ADOPTION WAS REQUIRED; ALTHOUGH FATHER WAS INCARCERATED FOR MUCH OF THE TIME SINCE THE CHILD WAS BORN, FATHER DID NOT SUPPORT THE CHILD OR MAKE ANY EFFORT TO GAIN PARENTAL ACCESS TO THE CHILD DURING THE PERIODS HE WAS NOT INCARCERATED (SECOND DEPT).
COUNTY COURT SHOULD HAVE FURTHER RESTRICTED DISCOVERY FOR THE PROTECTION OF WITNESSES (SECOND DEPT).
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT PORTION OF THIS HYBRID ARTICLE 78/SUMMARY JUDGMENT ACTION BECAUSE NO MOTION FOR SUMMARY DETERMINATION OF THAT PORTION OF THE PROCEEDING HAD BEEN MADE.
THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENTS DEPENDS ON THE UNDERLYING THEORY, FRAUD IN THIS CASE; AN AGREEMENT TO ASSIGN OR OBTAIN A MORTGAGE IS A CONTRACT INVOLVING AN INTEREST IN REAL PROPERTY AND IS SUBJECT TO THE STATUTE-OF-FRAUDS WRITING-REQUIREMENT (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

THE TOWN OF BABYLON INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY PROPERLY DETERMINED THAT A... HERE THE NATURE OF INFANT PLAINTIFF’S INJURIES WAS PROBATIVE OF HOW THE...