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
THE NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION LAW CREATES A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION AGAINST AN EMPLOYER FOR RETALIATION FOR WHISTLEBLOWING (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT HAD THE RIGHT TO ASSIGNED COUNSEL IN THIS CIVIL CONTEMPT PROCEEDING STEMMING FROM DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO PAY CHILD SUPPORT; THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE CONDUCTED AN INQUIRY TO SEE IF DEFENDANT QUALIFIED FOR ASSIGNED COUNSEL PRIOR TO ISSUING THE ORDER OF COMMITMENT (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT PROVIDE AN ADEQUATE EXCUSE FOR FAILING TO TAKE A TIMELY DEFAULT JUDGMENT; THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS ABANDONED (SECOND DEPT).
REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW 90-DAY NOTICE REQUIREMENT FOR FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS NOT MET, PROOF OF MAILING INSUFFICIENT.
Jury Need Not Draw the Permissible Inference of Negligence Under Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur, Even Where Defendant Offers No Proof 
DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR NOT MOVING TO SUPPRESS CREDIT CARDS SEIZED DURING THE EXECUTION OF A SEARCH WARRANT WHICH WERE NOT WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE WARRANT; THE INCRIMINATING NATURE OF THE CREDIT CARDS WAS NOT IMMEDIATELEY APPARENT (SECOND DEPT). ​
Bank Did Not Negotiate a Mortgage Modification in Good Faith as Required by CPLR 3408—Applicable “Good Faith” Standard Determined and Explained
DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE ADDRESS FOR DEFENDANT CORPORATION ON FILE WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE WAS INCORRECT, DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT ON THE GROUND DEFENDANT WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THE ACTION IN TIME TO DEFEND (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...