You are here: / Labor Law-Construction Law
,

PLAINTIFF WAS HIT BY A FALLING CHISEL WHILE SITTING UNDER A SIDEWALK BRIDGE AT THE WORKSITE TAKING A BREAK; THE CHISEL SHOULD HAVE BEEN SECURED AND THE SCAFFOLDING ABOVE PLAINTIFF WAS INADEQUATE TO PROTECT HIM FROM A FALLING OBJECT; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff in this falling-object case was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. Plaintiff was sitting underneath a sidewalk bridge on the jobsite, taking a break, when he was struck by a chisel. The chisel should have been secured and the scaffolding above plaintiff had gaps and therefore failed to provide adequate protection. Plaintiff did not have to prove where the chisel came from:

… “[I]njuries sustained while a worker was on site, although . . . on a break, come within the protections of Labor Law § 240(1)” … .

Plaintiff established that the chisel “required securing for the purposes of the undertaking” and that the scaffolding “proved inadequate” to protect him … . It is irrelevant that plaintiff did not know where the chisel fell from, or what caused it to fall, or hear anything fall, as “plaintiff is not required to show exactly how the [object] fell” … . Any alleged inconsistency concerning the location of the accident is immaterial … . Similarly, it does not matter where the chisel struck plaintiff’s body, as it is undisputed that it struck him. … [P]laintiff alleges without contradiction that the scaffolding was defective … , including the existence of gaps between the scaffolding planks. Contreras v City of New York, 2026 NY Slip Op 00612, First Dept 2-10-26

Practice Point: In a Labor Law 240(1) falling-object case, a plaintiff need not prove where the object came from.

 

,

THE A-FRAME LADDER PLAINTIFF WAS USING WHEN HE FELL WAS DEFECTIVE AND LABOR LAW 240(1) APPLIED ON THAT GROUND ALONE; EVEN IF THE LADDER HAD NOT BEEN DEFECTIVE, LABOR LAW 240(1) WOULD STILL APPLY BECAUSE THE LADDER WOBBLED AFTER PLAINTIFF RECEIVED AN ELECTRIC SHOCK; THERE IS NO EXCEPTION TO THE APPLICABILITY OF LABOR LAW 240(1) WHERE A LADDER-FALL IS PRECEDED BY AN ELECTRIC SHOCK (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mendez, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action in this ladder-fall case. Plaintiff was standing on an A-frame ladder when he he was shocked by a live electric wire and fell. At the time he was shocked, he felt the ladder wobble. That evidence was sufficient for summary judgment. There is no exception under Labor Law 240(1) for a fall which follows an electric shock:

… [T]he statute applies here because the ladder was defective. Plaintiff’s deposition testimony and the photographs provided clearly demonstrate that the ladder, which was the only one available for the work plaintiff was required to perform, had two bent and curved crossbeams and worn rubber feet. The general contractor’s corporate safety manager confirmed that the ladder was defective when he stated at his deposition that if he had observed a ladder with the damage depicted in the photographs, he would have replaced the ladder and taken it out of service.

Even if the ladder had been stable, this would have been no impediment to a claim under section 240 … . Plaintiff submitted evidence that the ladder was an inadequate safety device because it failed to provide adequate protection against the gravity-related risk inherent in the work he was performing. Plaintiff testified that when he removed his hand from the wires that shocked him, the ladder immediately “moved, wobbled and shifted,” establishing that it failed to adequately support and protect him from the gravity-related risk … . Szczesiak v Ery Tenant LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op 00600, First Dept 2-5-26

Practice Point: Plaintiff fell from a ladder which wobbled after he received an electric shock. The fact that the ladder wobbled was proof it was not an adequate safety device. The electric shock was not relevant to the applicability of Labor Law 240(1).​

 

PLAINTIFF TRIPPED AND FELL OUTSIDE, NOT IN A “PASSAGEWAY” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE INDUSTRIAL CODE; THE LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the Labor Law 241(6) cause of action should have been dismissed because plaintiff tripped and fell outside and not in a “passageway” within the meaning of Industrial Code 23-1.7(e)(1):

… [T]he Labor Law § 241(6) claim insofar as it was predicated on Industrial Code § 23-1.7(e)(1), as the accident occurred outdoors and therefore did not take place in a “passageway” within the meaning of the Industrial Code provision (see Quigley v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 168 AD3d 65, 67-68 [1st Dept 2018] [holding that a “passageway” under § 23-1.7(e)(1) pertains to “an interior or internal way of passage inside a building”]). Lacruise v Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Ctr., 2026 NY Slip Op 00424, First Dept 1-29-26

Practice Point: At least in the First Department, the Industrial Code reference to  “passageway” means an interior passage inside a building, not a walkway outside.

 

PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHILE STANDING ON INSTALLED REBAR WHICH WOBBLED AS A CO-WORKER HANDED HIM A PIECE OF REBAR; HE DROPPED THE REBAR BUT GRABBED IT BEFORE IT FELL ANY FURTHER, INJURING HIS SHOULDER; INJURY WHILE ATTEMPTING TO PREVENT AN OBJECT FROM FALLING IS COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1) (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. Plaintiff dropped a piece of rebar while standing on installed rebar which wobbled. The rebar fell about one foot before he grabbed it to keep it from falling further, injuring his shoulder. Injury from attempting to prevent an object from falling is covered by Labor Law 240(1):

Contrary to defendants’ assertion otherwise, they are not entitled to summary judgment on the grounds that plaintiff did not fall and was not struck by a falling object … . On the contrary, liability under the statute may be imposed where, as here, a plaintiff can establish that their injury was caused by an attempt to catch something or prevent something from falling further … . The record establishes that plaintiff was injured in the act of trying to catch a falling piece of rebar, and that his injury may have been prevented had defendants supplied a proper hoist to safely transfer the rebar… . According to the evidence submitted, although a crane was sometimes used to transfer heavy rebar at the job site, no crane was available at the time.

… [D]efendants failed to establish that that the previously installed rebar, which was the sole platform available for plaintiff to stand on while his coworkers passed him the rebar from above, was stable and safe for plaintiff to be working on at an elevated height … . Alonzo v RP1185 LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op 00306, First Dept 1-27-26

Practice Point: Injury when attempting to prevent an object from falling is covered by Labor Law 240(1).​

 

PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN A DRILL FELL FROM A CO-WORKER WHO WAS STANDING ON AN A-FRAME LADDER; THE DRILL SHOULD HAVE BEEN TETHERED TO THE CO-WORKER’S PERSON; PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff in this Labor Law 240(1) action was entitled to summary judgment in this falling object case. Plaintiff was struck by a drill which fell from a co-worker standing on an A-frame ladder. The drill should have been tethered to the co-worker’s person:

… [T[he coworker’s elevated work atop the A-frame ladder, warranted overhead protection or tethering of the tools to the coworker’s person to safeguard other workers from falling objects … . Elmaz v CNY Constr. LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op 00313, First Dept 1-27-26

Practice Point: Labor Law 240(1) requires protection against falling objects. Here a tool used by a co-worker who was standing on an A-frame ladder fell and struck plaintiff. Plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment because the tool should have been tethered to the co-worker’s person.

 

, ,

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.”

 

,

HERE THE OWNER AND GENERAL CONTRACTOR DEMONSTRATED THEY DID NOT EXERCISE SUPERVISION AND CONTROL OVER THE WORK PLAINTIFF WAS DOING WHEN INJURED; THEREFORE THE LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THEM SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; THE COURT NOTED THAT THE RIGHT TO GENERALLY SUPERVISE THE WORK OR TO STOP THE WORK FOR SAFETY VIOLATIONS DOES NOT CONSTITUTE “SUPERVISION AND CONTROL” OF THE WORK WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 200 OR COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, dismissing the Labor Law 200 and negligence causes of action against the owner and general contractor, noted that the right to generally supervise the work, to stop the work for a safety violation or to ensure compliance with safety regulations does not amount to the level of supervision and control of the work for liability under Labor Law 200. Plaintiff worked for a subcontractor and was injured while attempting to guide a heavy concrete object as it was lowered into a hole by a crane:

“The right to generally supervise the work, to stop the work if a safety violation is noted, or to ensure compliance with safety regulations does not amount to the supervision and control of the work necessary to impose liability on an owner or a general contractor pursuant to Labor Law § 200” … . Here, … defendants established … that the alleged incident arose from work performed over which they did not exercise supervision or control … . Kelly v RBSL Realty, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 07291, Second Dept 12-24-25

Practice Point: In the context of the requirements for Labor Law 200 and common law negligence liability for construction accidents, the owner’s and/or general contractor’s right to generally supervise the work and/or to stop the work for safety violations does not amount to “supervision and control” of the work.​

 

PLAINTIFF WAS STANDING ON THE SECOND RUNG FROM THE TOP, STRADDLING THE LADDER, WHEN IT WOBBLED AND FELL; THE NEED TO STAND NEAR THE TOP OF THE LADDER TO DO THE WORK DEMONSTRATES THE LADDER WAS NOT AN ADEQUATE SAFETY DEVICE ENTITLING PLAINTIFF TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION; THERE WAS A TWO JUSTICE DISSENT WHICH ARGUED THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S MISUSE OF THE LADDER WAS THE SOLE PROXIIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined plaintiff in this ladder-fall case was entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. Plaintiff was standing on the second rung from the top of an extendable step ladder, straddling the ladder, when the ladder fell away from the building. The majority concluded the fact that plaintiff had to stand on the second rung from the top and straddle the ladder to do the work, he was not provided with an adequate safety device. The dissent argued there was a question of fact whether plaintiff’s misuse of the ladder was the sole proximate cause of the accident:

Supreme Court erred in finding that plaintiff failed to meet his prima facie burden, as “[w]e have repeatedly held that when a worker injured in a fall was provided with an elevation-related safety device, [here the ladder,] the question of whether that device provided proper protection within the meaning of Labor Law § 240 (1) is ordinarily a question of fact, except in those instances where the unrefuted evidence establishes that the device collapsed, slipped or otherwise failed to perform its function of supporting the worker and his or her materials” … . Accordingly, … an unexplained fall of the ladder while plaintiff was using it to reach an elevated work area, he is entitled to the presumption that the ladder was not good enough to afford proper protection … . Nusbaum v 1455 Wash. Ave. LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 07066, Third Dept 12-18-25

Practice Point: Here the fact that plaintiff had to stand on the second rung from the top, straddling the ladder, to do the work demonstrated the ladder was not an adequate safety device, entitling plaintiff to summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action.

 

,

SUBCONTRACTOR DAL HAD ENTERED CONTRACTS FOR THIS RENOVATION PROJECT WITH THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR, JRM, AND THE PROPERTY OWNER, ROCKEFELLER; PLAINTIFF, WHO DID NOT WORK FOR DAL, WITHOUT DAL’S PERMISSION, KNOWING THE LADDER WAS DEFECTIVE, USED A DEFECTIVE LADDER OWNED BY DAL; THE LADDER WOBBLED AND PLAINTIFF FELL; THE COURT OF APPEALS HELD THE INDEMNIFICATION CLAUSES IN DAL’S CONTRACTS WITH JRM AND ROCKEFELLER DID NOT APPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S INJURIES (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, over a two-judge dissent, determined that DAL, a subcontractor, was not contractually required to indemnify the general contractor, JRM, and the property owner, Rockefeller, for plaintiff’s injuries from a ladder-fall. The plaintiff, Dibrino, a carpenter working for a nonparty subcontractor, Jacobsen, had already completed his measurements using his employer’s A-frame ladder and a scaffold, which he had moved to his next work-area, when he was asked to redo the measurements. Plaintiff, knowing it was defective, used an A-frame ladder owned by DAL when he remeasured. The ladder wobbled, plaintiff fell; a tool on his belt impaled his abdomen. The ruling that DAL was not obligated to indemnify the general contractor (JAM) and the owner (Rockefeller) for plaintiff’s injuries is based on the contractual language:

Mr. Dibrino’s unauthorized use of an unattended ladder (which he knew was not furnished by his employer and knew he was not supposed to use) instead of using the scaffold and ladder supplied by Jacobson that he had used earlier that day in that same spot, to perform work squarely outside the scope of the agreement between DAL and JRM, is not reasonably construed as arising from performance DAL’s work. JRM and Rockefeller’s reading would mean DAL’s contractual duty to indemnify would be triggered by any event that could be traced to DAL through any path—even, for example, had DAL disposed of the defective ladder in a dumpster and Mr. Dibrino retrieved it. Such an expansive reading of these indemnity provisions is implausibly broad, … an indemnification provision “must be strictly construed to avoid reading into it a duty which the parties did not intend to be assumed” … . Dibrino v Rockefeller Ctr. N., Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 07077, CtApp 12-18-25

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for insight into how indemnification clauses in contracts among a subcontractor, the general contractor and the owner should be interpreted under the Labor Law. Here the clauses did not apply to injuries suffered by a worker who (1) did not work for the subcontractor and (2) used the subcontractor’s ladder without the subcontractor’s permission, knowing that the ladder was defective.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF TRIPPED OVER A FLOOR TO CEILING WOODEN BRACE IN A HOME WHICH WAS UNDER CONSTRUCTION; THE THIRD DEPARTMENT HELD THAT THE OPEN AND OBVIOUS NATURE OF THE BRACE DID NOT WARRANT THE AWARD OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO THE DEFENDANTS ON THE LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the open and obvious nature of condition (a wooden brace over which plaintiff tripped) did not warrant summary judgment in defendants’ favor on the Labor Law 200 cause of action. The home was under construction and the brace ran at a 45 degree angle from the floor to the ceiling in the middle of the kitchen:

… [D]efendants failed to meet their prima facie burden as questions of fact remain as to whether defendants maintained the worksite in a reasonably safe condition, precluding summary judgment. … [D]efendants presented an affidavit of David Rubin, a former CEO of a general contracting firm with 45 years of experience in the field of general construction. Rubin reviewed, among other things, photographs of the worksite and observed there were two-by-four wooden braces set up throughout the home that were “necessary and fundamental to the construction process.” He explained that the brace plaintiff tripped over was “conspicuous and not hidden from sight, and indeed, plaintiff had already seen that particular brace prior to his incident.” Ultimately, he opined that neither the use nor the placement of the brace was negligent as it was necessary to support the structure at that stage of construction.

Although Rubin placed great emphasis on the fact that the brace was open and obvious and that plaintiff saw it prior to his fall, this Court has repeatedly held that “the open and obvious nature of an allegedly dangerous condition does not, standing alone, necessarily obviate a [general contractor’s] duty to maintain [the worksite] in a reasonably safe condition” … . Rather, the readily observable nature of the wooden brace “merely negated any duty that defendant[s] owed plaintiff to warn of [the] potentially dangerous condition[ ]” … . Nor does plaintiff’s testimony at his deposition that he saw the wooden brace prior to his fall defeat his claim as his “previous knowledge of a defective condition, if any, may be considered by a jury in assessing comparative negligence” … . Accordingly, “[v]iewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff as the nonmoving party, a question of fact remains as to whether defendants’ [worksite was] maintained in a reasonably safe condition. That question is for the trier of fact to resolve” … . Sullivan v Flynn, 2025 NY Slip Op 06773, Third Dept 12-4-25

Practice Point: Here the Third Department noted that a condition which is open and obvious and of which the plaintiff was aware before he was injured is not a sufficient ground for the award of summary judgment on a Labor Law 200 cause of action. Here a wooden floor to ceiling brace in the middle of the kitchen in a house under construction, over which plaintiff tripped, was deemed to raise a question of fact.

 

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