You are here: / / INSTALLING ELECTRIC CABLES IS CONSTRUCTION WORK WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR...

INSTALLING ELECTRIC CABLES IS CONSTRUCTION WORK WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 241(6); PLAINTIFF, WHO WAS STRUCK IN THE EYE BY A CABLE, SUFFICIENTLY DEMONSTRATED THE EYE-PROTECTION-EQUIPMENT REGULATION IN THE INDUSTRIAL CODE APPLIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant, Kamco, was not entitled to summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s Labor Law 241(6) cause of action. Plaintiff (Lopez) alleged he was struck in the eye by an electrical cable as he was attempting to connect it. Plaintiff (Lopez) alleged Kamco violated the Industrial Code by failing to provide eye-protection equipment:

“‘[T]he courts have generally held that the scope of Labor Law § 241(6) is governed by 12 NYCRR 23-1.4(b)(13), which defines construction work expansively. Under that regulation, construction work consists of [a]ll work of the types performed in the construction, erection, alteration, repair, maintenance, painting or moving of buildings or other structures'” … . Construction work pursuant to 12 NYCRR 23-1.4(b)(13) may include “the work of hoisting, land clearing, earth moving, grading, excavating, trenching, pipe and conduit laying, road and bridge construction, concreting, . . . equipment installation and the structural installation of wood, metal, glass, plastic, masonry and other building materials in any form or for any purpose.”

… “In order to establish prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, a defendant must show that the plaintiff failed to identify a section of the Industrial Code that was allegedly violated, that any such section is insufficiently specific to support liability or is inapplicable to the facts of the case, or that the defendant complied with the requirements of the identified provision” … .

Here, since Lopez was engaged in the installation and furnishing of electrical cables, Kamco failed to establish, prima facie, that Labor Law § 241(6) was inapplicable to Lopez’s activities … . Kamco also failed to establish, prima facie, that 12 NYCRR 23-1.8(a) was inapplicable or that Lopez’s actions were the sole proximate cause of his alleged injuries, as Kamco failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether Lopez was engaged in work that might endanger the eyes, whether approved eye protection was provided to Lopez on the date of the accident, and whether Kamco’s failure to require Lopez to wear safety goggles was a proximate cause of his alleged injuries … . Lopez v Kamco Servs., LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 05338, Second Dept 10-30-24

Practice Point: Installing electric cables is construction work covered by Labor Law 241(6).

Practice Point: The Industrial Code provision requiring eye-protection-equipment may apply to plaintiff here who was struck in the eye by an electric cable.

 

You might also like
EVIDENCE OF ACCESSORIAL LIABILITY INSUFFICIENT IN THIS JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PROCEEDING, PRESENCE IS NOT ENOUGH 2ND DEPT.
PLEA TO ASSAULT FIRST WAS DEFECTIVE BECAUSE THE INTENT TO INFLICT SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY WAS NOT STATED IN THE ALLOCUTION (SECOND DEPT).
Court Abused Its Discretion In Exercising Its Inherent Power to Grant a Motion to Vacate a Default Judgment More than a Year After the Judgment Was Entered (Five Years Here)
Defendant Was Subjected to Custodial Interrogation Before Waiving His Right to Remain Silent—Oral Pre-Miranda and Written Post-Miranda Statements Should Have Been Suppressed—Error Deemed Harmless
IN MOVING FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PLAINTIFF COULD NOT MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE WITH EVIDENCE SUBMITTED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN REPLY PAPERS, PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
Judge’s Statement Defense Counsel Should Confine Her Opening to What She Intended to Prove, Under the Facts, Did Not Shift Burden of Proof
IN A SLIP AND FALL CASE, TO DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION, THE DEFENDANT MUST PROVE THE AREA OF THE SLIP AND FALL WAS CLEANED OR INSPECTED CLOSE IN TIME TO THE INCIDENT; PROOF OF GENERAL CLEANING OR INSPECTION PRACTICES IS NOT ENOUGH; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE DEFENSE DID NOT NEED TO PROVIDE PLAINTIFF WITH “EXPERT-OPINION” NOTICE OF ITS INTENT TO CALL PLAINTIFF’S TREATING PHYSICIAN TO TESTIFY THAT PLAINTIFF’S COGNITIVE DEFICITS WERE THE RESULT OF A PRIOR STROKE, NOT THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT; THE DOCTOR’S TESTIMONY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PRECLUDED AND THE $2,000,000 VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE (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

IN A CHILD VICTIMS ACT CASE AGAINST A TEACHER ALLEGED TO HAVE SEXUALLY ABUSED... IN A MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, A SPECULATIVE AND CONCLUSORY EXPERT AFFIDAVIT...