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
SANCTION FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A CONDITIONAL ORDER OF PRECLUSION SHOULD NOT HAVE GONE BEYOND THE PENALTY DESCRIBED IN THE ORDER (SECOND DEPT).
COUNTY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT A TOWN POLICE OFFICER WHO WAS INJURED UNDERGOING A PHYSICAL FITNESS TEST AS A CANDIDATE FOR A COUNTY SWAT TEAM WAS A SPECIAL EMPLOYEE OF THE COUNTY SUCH THAT THE POLICE OFFICER’S ONLY REMEDY WAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION (SECOND DEPT).
A MOTION TO VACATE AN ORDER SHOULD BE TRANSFERRED TO THE JUDGE WHO MADE THE ORDER; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, PRE-MIRANDA QUESTIONING OF THE DEFENDANT ABOUT HIS EMPLOYMENT CONSTITUTED CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION; ALL OF DEFENDANT’S STATEMENTS, PRE- AND POST-MIRANDA, MUST BE SUPPRESSED; JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN TOLD OUT-OF-COURT STATEMENTS ADMITTED FOR A NONHEARSAY PURPOSE SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED FOR THEIR TRUTH (SECOND DEPT).
False Arrest and False Imprisonment Causes of Action Properly Dismissed—City Demonstrated Police Had Probable Cause to Arrest Based Upon a Complaint by an Identified Citizen
THE 2007 NOTICE OF DEFAULT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT ACCELERATE THE DEBT; THE INITIAL ACTION WAS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF STANDING AND DID NOT, THEREFORE, ACCELERATE THE DEBT (SECOND DEPT),
Doctrine of Primary Assumption of the Risk Does Not Apply to Game of “Manhunt” Played After Midnight on School Property
COUNTY DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT PROOF THAT THE INJURY OF PLAINTIFF INMATE BY OTHER INMATES WAS NOT FORESEEABLE, THAT THE SAFETY PRECAUTIONS WERE ADEQUATE, OR THAT THE MEDICAL CARE WAS ADEQUATE, COUNTY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (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...