You are here: / Labor Law-Construction Law
image_pdfPDF Friendly Versionimage_printPrint Friendly Version

PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION; THE ROPE AND FRAME USED TO PREVENT A HEAVY OBJECT FROM FALLING WHEN PLAINTIFF DETACHED IT FROM THE WALL DID NOT WORK (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor law 240(1) cause of action. Plaintiff was struck by a 200 pound fire damper when it fell from the wall. A co-worker was holding a rope tied to the damper and looped over a temporary frame. When plaintiff broke the last weld securing the fire damper the co-worker who was holding the rope was unable to keep the damper from falling:

… [T]he statute is violated where an object, while being hoisted or secured, falls because of the absence or inadequacy of a safety device of the kind enumerated in the statute … , including where, as here, the inadequacy or absence of a safety device results in the uncontrolled descent of an object … . Here, plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment because the rope proved inadequate to prevent the damper from falling … .

The eight-foot fall of the 200-pound damper that plaintiff was tasked with removing was not an ordinary construction site peril but an elevation-related hazard, within the ambit of Labor Law § 240(1), which was required to be secured against unregulated descent to prevent it from falling on plaintiff … . Further, regulating its descent to prevent it from falling would not have been contrary to the purpose of work … . Mayorga v 75 Plaza LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 01204, First Dept 2-25-21

 

/0 Comments/by

THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE LEVEL OF CONTROL EXERCISED BY THE DEFENDANT OVER THE CONSTRUCTION WAS SUCH THAT HE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO THE HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6 ACTION; COMPLAINT REINSTATED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this Labor Law 240 (1) and 241 (6) action should not have been granted. Plaintiff fell from an unsecured ladder used to get from the basement to the first floor of the building under construction. Supreme Court had ruled the statutory homeowner’s exemption insulated the defendant from liability:

… [P]laintiff testified that defendant supplied the ladders that were used by the contractors, and the nonparty contractor testified that defendant was on site giving direction nearly every day. The nonparty contractor had asked defendant several times prior to plaintiff’s accident for permission to build stairs from the basement to the first floor, insisting that it was necessary to allow for safer and easier access to the first floor. Although defendant was aware that workers had been entering the house through the basement and using a ladder to access the first floor, he refused permission to build the stairs until after plaintiff’s accident, at which time defendant immediately directed the nonparty contractor to build the stairs. Such participation goes “far beyond ‘[a] homeowner’s typical involvement in a construction project’ ” … .. Indeed, the nonparty contractor further testified that a real estate limited liability company of which defendant was a member had hired him to perform work on the construction of a six-story building, suggesting that defendant had a degree of “sophistication or business acumen” such that he was in a position to know about and insure himself against his exposure to absolute liability … . O’Mara v Ranalli, 2021 NY Slip Op 00982, Fourth Dept 2-11-21

 

/0 Comments/by

PLAINTIFF, A BUILDING MAINTENANCE WORKER, FELL FROM AN 8-FOOT UNSECURED LADDER WHEN ATTEMPTING TO REMOVE A BIRD’S NEST FROM A GUTTER; THE ACTIVITY WAS NOT ROUTINE CLEANING AND PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over an extensive two-justice dissent, determined plaintiff, who maintained a mixed use building, was engaged in a “Labor Law 240 (1)” covered activity when he was attempting to remove a bird’s nest from a gutter. Plaintiff fell from an 8-foot unsecured ladder when he was surprised by a bird flying out of the nest:

… [P]laintiff’s work in removing the bird’s nest from one of the building’s gutters was not routine cleaning. Plaintiff had never before been given such a task during his time working on the premises. Indeed, the reason for removing the nest was, in part, to prevent the further accumulation of bird excrement under the nest. Plaintiff’s supervisor characterized the task of removing the nest as nonroutine cleaning. In addition, removing the bird’s nest from the gutter, which was located above the tenant’s entry door, necessarily involved elevation-related risks that are not generally associated with typical household cleaning … . Although plaintiff’s work did not necessitate the use of specialized equipment or expertise, nor was it performed in conjunction with any construction, renovation or repair project on the building … , those factors are not dispositive in light of the atypical nature of the work and its attendant elevation-related risks and, moreover, the fact that plaintiff’s task involved the removal of extraneous materials that had formed in the gutter not due to its normal operation … . Healy v Est Downtown, LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 00699, Fourth Dept 2-5-21

 

/0 Comments/by

PLAINTIFF APPARENTLY FELL FROM A WET, SLIPPERY WOODEN LADDER; HE WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE ACTION; NO NEED TO SHOW THE LADDER WAS INHERENTLY DEFECTIVE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240(1) without showing the ladder from which he fell was inherently defective:

Plaintiff testified that he was injured when he fell while using a wet and slippery wooden ladder provided by defendants for him to move between the tenth and eleventh floors of the construction site to perform his work. This testimony established prima facie that plaintiff’s work exposed him to an elevation-related risk against which defendants failed to provide him with proper protection, as required by Labor Law § 240(1) … . It is clear that the ladder was not adequate to prevent plaintiff from falling and there is no dispute that other than the ladder, no additional safety devices were provided … . Plaintiff was not required to show that the ladder was inherently defective … . Millligan v Tutor Perini Corp., 2021 NY Slip Op 00630, First Dept 2-4-21

 

/0 Comments/by

PLAINTIFF FELL FROM A SCAFFOLD WHICH DID NOT HAVE GUARDRAILS AND WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION DESPITE DEFENDANTS’ ARGUMENTS THAT PLAINTIFF DID NOT LOCK THE WHEELS ON THE SCAFFOLD AND PLAINTIFF MAY HAVE FAINTED OR STEPPED BACKWARDS OFF THE SCAFFOLD (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 apparently fell from a scaffold which did not have guardrails. Defendants unsuccessfully argued plaintiff did not lock the wheels of the scaffold and therefore was the sole proximate cause of the accident:

… [D]efendants failed to raise an issue of fact as to whether plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his accident. Given the scaffold’s inadequacy to protect him from falling, plaintiff’s alleged failure to lock the wheels of the scaffold could not be the sole proximate cause of his accident … . It would be at most comparative negligence, which is not a defense to a Labor Law § 240(1) claim … . Defendants’ argument, raised for the first time on appeal, that plaintiff was the sole proximate cause because he was not wearing a safety harness is also unavailing … , as is their suggestion that plaintiff may have fainted and/or stepped backwards off the scaffold … . Ordonez v One City Block, LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 00529, First Dept 2-2-21

 

/by

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF FELL FROM A LADDER, HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED; THERE WAS A VIDEO OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL WHICH SHOWED THE LADDER WAS SECURED TO THE SCAFFOLDING AND DID NOT MOVE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined plaintiff’s Labor Law 240(1) cause of action was properly dismissed. Plaintiff fell from a ladder, but there was a video of the fall which showed the ladder did not move and was secured to the scaffolding:

Defendant was properly granted summary judgment dismissing the § 240(1) claim. Surveillance footage of plaintiff falling from the ladder demonstrates that it did not move or shake, refuting plaintiff’s testimony to the contrary … . In addition, photographs taken soon after his fall show that the top of the ladder was connected to the sidewalk bridge and scaffolding above, and tied to the scaffolding structure about one-third of the way up. Cordova v 653 Eleventh Ave. LLC., 2021 NY Slip Op 00490, First Dept 1-28-21

 

/by

PLAINTIFF WAS USING A CLOSED A-FRAME LADDER WHEN IT SLIPPED OUT FROM UNDER HIM; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this Labor Law 240(1) action should have been granted. Plaintiff was using a closed A-frame ladder when it slipped out from under him:

A worker’s decision to use an A-frame ladder in the closed position is not a per se reason to declare him the sole proximate cause of an accident,” and plaintiff here “gave a specific reason why he used the ladder in the closed position” … . Defendants also did not elicit any evidence that it would have been plaintiff’s “‘normal and logical response'” to use the taller ladder that they allege was available to plaintiff at the time of his accident … . Similarly, as for plaintiff’s putative recalcitrance, defendants failed to establish that, among other things: plaintiff knew that the taller ladder was available for his use; he was expected to use the taller ladder for his work; he “‘chose for no good reason not to do so'” … ; and, he refused to follow a specific instruction to use the taller ladder for his work … . Ultimately, “[d]efendants’ contentions would amount to, at most, comparative negligence, which is not a defense to a Labor Law § 240(1) violation … . Morales v 2400 Ryer Ave. Realty, LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 00498, First Dept 1-28-21

 

/by

PLAINTIFF’S FALL FROM A LOW CONCRETE RETAINING WALL TO THE GROUND WAS NOT THE TYPE OF ELEVATION-RELATED INCIDENT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court determined the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action should have been dismissed. Plaintiff alleged he stepped on a low concrete retaining wall and slipped on oil, which was not the type of elevation hazard covered by section 240(1):

… [T]he defendant established that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240(1) on the ground that the plaintiff was not exposed to the type of elevation-related hazard contemplated by that statute. The evidence submitted by the defendant established that the height differential from the concrete retaining wall to the ground did not constitute a physically significant elevation differential covered by the statute … . Eliassian v G.F. Constr., Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 00419, Second Dept 1-27-21

 

/by

THE HOMEOWNER AND THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT SUPERVISORY AUTHORITY TO BE LIABLE IN THIS LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON-LAW NEGLIGENCE ACTION STEMMING FROM A SCAFFOLD COLLAPSE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the Labor Law 200 and negligence causes of action against the homeowners (the Chetrits) and the general contractor (J & S) should have been dismissed in this scaffold-collapse case. Neither defendant had sufficient supervisory authority to trigger liability. Plaintiff worked for a company hired by J & S, the general contractor:

“‘Section 200 of the Labor Law merely codified the common-law duty imposed upon an owner or general contractor to provide construction site work[ers] with a safe place to work'” … . “‘To be held liable under Labor Law § 200 for injuries arising from the manner in which work is performed, a defendant must have authority to exercise supervision and control over the work'” … . Here, both the Chetrits and J & S demonstrated their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence causes of action insofar as asserted against each of them, as the record demonstrates that neither the Chetrits nor J & S supervised, directed, or otherwise controlled the plaintiff’s work … . In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Contrary to the plaintiff’s contentions, the fact that Abraham Chetrit, David Chetrit, and J & S’s employees often visited the work site to inspect the work, make requests, and ask questions does not preclude summary judgment, as “‘[m]ere general supervisory authority at [the] work site for the purpose of overseeing the progress of the work and inspecting the work product is insufficient to impose liability under Labor Law § 200′” … . Moreover, although J & S employees had the power to stop any unsafe work at the work site, this alone is insufficient to impose liability under Labor Law § 200 … . Debennedetto v Chetrit, 2021 NY Slip Op 00413, Second Dept 1-27-21

 

/by

THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S WORK ON A BOILER WAS ROUTINE MAINTENANCE OR PART OF A LARGER COVERED ACTIVITY IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) ACTION; DEFENDANTS DID NOT SUPERVISE OR CONTROL PLAINTIFF’S WORK REQUIRING DISMISSAL OF THE LABOR LAW 200 AND NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTIONS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether plaintiff was engaged in a covered activity and not routine maintenance of a boiler. In addition, the First Department held that the defendant did not supervise of control the plaintiff’s work and therefore the Labor Law 200 and common law negligence causes of action should have been dismissed:

Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) do not cover workers engaged in routine maintenance … . The determination of whether a worker was engaged in a covered activity is not made at the moment of injury, but in the context of the entire project … . While plaintiff here was engaged in replacing a boiler steam valve, an activity some courts have deemed routine maintenance … , it was part of a larger project that included removing portions of the boilers via blowtorches and installation of new components by welding, thus raising an issue of fact whether it falls within covered activity … . …

Plaintiff’s accident arose from the means and methods of the work, not a defective condition … , and the record is clear that defendants neither supervised nor controlled the work being performed by plaintiff and his coworkers at the time of the accident. Thus, this Court, upon a search of the record, dismisses plaintiff’s Labor Law § 200 and common-law claims … . Gaston v Trustees of Columbia Univ. in the City of N.Y., 2021 NY Slip Op 00254, First Dept 1-19-21

 

/by

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

Copyright © 2021 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy