You are here: / Labor Law-Construction Law
,

PLAINTIFF STEPPED BACKWARD TO ALLOW OTHERS TO EXIT THE ELEVATOR; THE FLOOR OF THE ELEVATOR WAS SIX TO TWELVE INCHES ABOVE THE BUILDING FLOOR AND PLAINTIFF SEVERELY INJURED HIS KNEE; THE SIX TO TWELVE INCH GAP WAS NOT THE TYPE OF “ELEVATION RISK” COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1) (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the 6 to 12-inch gap between the floor of the elevator and the unfinished floor just outside the elevator door was not the type of “elevation risk” addressed by Labor Law 240(1). Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Labor Law 240(1) action should have been dismissed. However, Supreme Court properly denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the Labor Law 200 cause of action (unsafe condition):

Supreme Court should have granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment to the extent it sought dismissal of the Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action. Not every fall results in the “extraordinary protections of Labor Law § 240(1)” … . The statute protects workers only from those falls stemming from the “extraordinary elevation risks” created by “the relative elevation at which the [work] must be performed” and not from “the usual and ordinary dangers of a construction site” … .

It is true that “there is no bright-line minimum height differential that determines whether an elevation hazard exists” … . However, under the present circumstances, the 6-to-12 inch gap between the elevator doorway and the floor “was not a physically significant height elevation differential to trigger the protection of Labor Law § 240(1)” … . Also, neither the elevator nor the missing ramp was the “functional equivalent of a safety device enumerated in the statute” … . Instead, the record supports a conclusion that plaintiff’s injury arose from the type of “usual and ordinary” perils plaintiff could expect at his job site … . Ambrose v City Univ. Constr. Fund, 2026 NY Slip Op 05060, Second Dept 8-20-26

Practice Point: Here the six to twelve inch gap between the floor of the elevator and the building floor was not the type of “elevation risk” covered by Labor Law 240(1). Labor Law 200 (unsafe condition) may apply.​

 

PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN A BEAM WHICH WAS BEING HOISTED STARTED SWINGING WHEN PLAINTIFF WAS HOLDING ON TO IT; THE BEAM STRUCK A PILE OF BEAMS ON THE GROUND AND PLAINTIFF WAS “JERKED … FORWARD;” BECAUSE THE BEAM SHOULD HAVE BEEN SECURED AND THE INJURY WAS RELATED TO THE FORCE OF GRAVITY PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. Plaintiff was injured when a beam was being hoisted started swinging with plaintiff’s arm around it, and struck a pile beams, causing plaintiff to be “jerked … forward.”

“Labor Law § 240(1) imposes upon owners, contractors, and their agents a nondelegable duty to provide workers proper protection from elevation-related hazards” … . “Liability is contingent upon ‘the existence of a hazard contemplated in section 240(1) and the failure to use, or the inadequacy of, a safety device of the kind enumerated therein'” … . In cases involving falling objects, the applicability of the statute does not “depend upon whether the object has hit the worker” but rather “whether the harm flows directly from the application of the force of gravity to the object” … . “In falling object cases, the plaintiff must demonstrate that at the time the object fell, it either was being hoisted or secured, or required securing for the purposes of the undertaking” … .

Here, the plaintiff established, prima facie, [defendants’] liability under Labor Law § 240(1) by submitting, among other things, transcripts of the plaintiff’s deposition testimony and the crane operator’s deposition testimony, which established that the beam being hoisted at the time of the incident was an object that required securing for purposes of the undertaking, and the harm flowed “directly from the application of the force of gravity to the” beam … . Sougstad v OLP Hauppauge, LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op 05050, Second Dept 8-19-26

Practice Point: Here a beam which started swinging when it was hoisted was deemed a “falling object.” Although the “falling object” did not strike plaintiff, his injury was the result of the force of gravity upon the beam which should have been secured. He was therefore entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action.

 

,

THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONSTRUCTION MANAGER WAS AN AGENT FOR THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND THEREFORE COULD BE LIABLE FOR A DANGEROUS CONDITION AT THE WORK SITE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the defendants” (Petrocelli’s) motion for summary judgment in this case stemming from an injury at a construction site. Petrocelli was the construction manager. There was a question of fact whether Petrocelli could be deemed an agent of the general contractor such that it could be liable for a dangerous condition at the site:

While a construction manager is generally not considered a contractor responsible for the safety of the workers at a construction site pursuant to Labor Law § 200, “it may nonetheless become responsible if it has been delegated the authority and duties of a general contractor, or if it functions as an agent of the owner of the premises” … . “A party is deemed to be an agent of an owner or general contractor under the Labor Law when it has supervisory control and authority over the work being done where a plaintiff is injured” … . A role of general supervision “is insufficient to impose liability under the Labor Law” … .

Here, the Petrocelli defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that they did not exercise a significant degree of control and supervision of the construction site such that it was not delegated the authority and duties of a general contractor … , and failed to establish that they lacked constructive notice of the allegedly dangerous condition because they did not submit any evidence to demonstrate that the “dangerous condition did not exist for a sufficient length of time to afford [them] a reasonable opportunity to discover and remedy it” … . Vasquez v 1719 27 ST, LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op 04894, Second Dept 8-5-26

Practice Point: If a construction manager acts as an agent for the general contractor and therefore exercises supervisory control over a work site, the construction manager may be liable for a dangerous condition at the work site.​

 

,

A STAIRWAY MAY CONSTITUTE A “SAFETY DEVICE” WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240(1) AND A STAIRWAY NEED NOT BE DEFECTIVE TO TRIGGER LABOR LAW 240(1) LIABILITY; HERE IT WAS ALLEGED THE STAIRWAY WAS INADEQUATELY ILLUMINATED AND WAS OBSTRUCTED BY A CABLE WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF TO TRIP AND FALL (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, affirming the denial of defendant’s (RBS’s) motion for summary judgment, over a two justice dissent, determined that a stairway need not be defective to fall under the coverage of Labor Law 240(1). Here plaintiff alleged the stairway was inadequately illuminated and was obstructed with a cable which caused plaintiff to trip and fall. The stairway can constitute a safety device within the meaning of Labor Law 240(1) and the majority concluded the stairway itself need not be defective to trigger Labor Law 240(1) liability:

Questions of fact exist as to whether the staircase constituted a Labor Law § 240(1) safety device … .

… [In] “the First Department, falls from permanent appurtenances which function as the only means of access are . . . entitled to Labor Law § 240(1) protection,” including “stairways . . . utilized . . . in the performance of the plaintiff’s work.” Consistent with this, RBS cites no controlling caselaw holding that Labor Law § 240(1) does not apply to injuries incurred on stairways that are not structurally defective….  … T]he dissent makes an argument … that Labor Law § 240(1) claims can only be made as to injuries incurred on stairways that are structurally defective. The dissent cites three cases to support its claim that Labor Law § 240(1) claims involving stairways have been sustained only when the stairways involved were structurally defective. However, none of these cases sustained a Labor Law § 240(1) claim; rather, they affirmed denials of summary judgment, and in any event, did not turn on the structural soundness of the staircases at issue … . It is improper for us to decide an issue that appellant did not raise and that respondent was not given an opportunity to address … . Mazzurco v Broadway 52nd L.P., 2026 NY Slip Op 04822, First Dept 7-30-26

Practice Point: In the First Department, a stairway may constitute a safety device within the meaning of Labor Law 240(1) and the stairway itself need not be defective to trigger Labor Law 230(1) liability.

Practice Point: An appeal should not be decided on a ground not raised by the appellant.

 

VERTICALLY-STACKED SHEETS OF METAL ON A DOLLY FELL ON PLAINTIFF WHEN HE MOVED IT; THE HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL WAS NOT DE MINIMUS AND PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) FALLING-OBJECT CASE; THE FACT THAT THE DOLLY BELONGED TO ANOTHER CONTRACTOR WAS NOT DISPOSTIVE, PLAINTIFF WAS DIRECTED TO MOVE THE DOLLY AS PART OF HIS EMPLOYMENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff should have been awarded summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. Plaintiff moved a dolly belonging to another contractor. The dolly tipped over and the vertically-stacked sheets of metal that were on the dolly struck him. The elevation differential between the dolly and floor was not de minimus and, although the dolly belonged to another contractor, plaintiff was directed to move it:

Based on plaintiff’s testimony as well as the testimony of OTL Enterprises’ principal that an unsecured load of material on a dolly was unsafe because the material could fall, plaintiff established that the metal sheets required securing … , the material that fell here was elevated on a dolly such that the elevation differential was not de minimus but rather was sufficient for the load of metal sheets to generate a significant amount of force and was a proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries.

Plaintiff’s conduct of moving another subcontractor’s loaded dolly that was in the way of his work after an unnamed site supervisor allegedly directed him to do so was in the scope of plaintiff’s employment and was not the act of a volunteer falling outside the ambit of Labor Law § 240(1) … . Plaintiff’s conduct in moving the dolly was at most comparative negligence, which is not a defense to a Labor Law § 240(1) claim … . Aponte v 298 E. Vil. Owner LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op 04138, First Dept 6-30-26

Practice Point: The difference in height between the platform of a dolly and the floor was not de minimus. Plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action after being struck by metal plates which fell from the dolly.

 

,

PLAINTIFF’S STATEMENT THE LADDER MOVED SIDE TO SIDE CAUSING HIM TO FALL AND PLAINTIFF’S STATEMENT HE LOST HIS BALANCE ARE NOT INCONSISTENT; PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Suprem[e Court, determined plaintiff in this ladder-fall case was entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. Plaintiff testified the ladder moved side to side. A medica report indicated plaintiff said he lost his balance. The two statements were not inconsistent:

Plaintiff, who fell from an eight-foot A-frame ladder while installing sheetrock, established his prima facie entitlement to summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action through his testimony that the ladder moved from side to side and caused him to fall … .

… [Even] if plaintiff’s hearsay statement contained in his post-accident medical report and post-accident investigation report that he lost his balance may be considered, it is not inconsistent with his testimony that the ladder moved and caused him to fall … . Gomez v Brookfield Props. One WFC Co., LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op 03921, First Dept 6-23-26

Practice Point: The statement that a ladder-fall resulted from movement of the ladder from side to sided and the statement that the ladder-fall resulted from plaintiff’s losing his balance are not inconsistent and do not create a question of fact.

 

,

EVIDENCE THAT THE A-FRAME LADDER FROM WHICH PLAINTIFF FELL WAS UNSECURED AND SHIFTED FOR NO APPARENT REASON WARRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION; EVIDENCE THAT THE LADDER WAS RESTING ON GARBAGE BAGS SPOKE TO COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE, WHICH IS NOT A DEFENSE (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff should have been awarded summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action in this A-frame ladder-fall case. The evidence that the ladder was unsecured and shifted for no apparent reason was sufficient to support summary judgment. The allegation that the ladder was resting on garbage bags spoke only to comparative negligence which is not a defense to a Labor Law 240(1) violation:

Supreme Court should have granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as to liability on his Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action. Plaintiff established his entitlement to summary judgment through his testimony that while he was standing on the ladder, it shifted and fell for no apparent reason … . Plaintiff also established that he was provided with a safety device — namely, the ladder itself — but that the device proved to be inadequate … .

The testimony stating that the feet of the ladder were resting on garbage bags is insufficient to warrant denial of plaintiff’s motion, as there is no dispute that the ladder was unsecured … and at most, such evidence constitutes comparative negligence which is not a defense to a violation of Labor Law § 240(1). Rudzikewycz v 164 W. 79th St. Corp., 2026 NY Slip Op 03897, First Dept 6-18-26

Practice Point: If a ladder isn’t “secured” and it moves and plaintiff falls, plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment on a Labor Law 240(1) cause of action, irrespective of any comparative negligence.

 

EVIDENCE THAT THE A-FRAME LADDER WAS NOT SECURED AND WAS “IMPROPERLY PLACED” WARRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LADDER-FALL CASE ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION; THERE IS NO NEED TO DEMONSTRATE THE LADDER WAS DEFECTIVE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent which argued there are triable issues of fact, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action in this A-frame ladder-fall case. The court noted that plaintiff need not demonstrate the ladder was defective. It is sufficient to demonstrate the ladder was not secured and was “improperly placed:”

To establish a prima facie case of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), a plaintiff must ” ‘show that the statute was violated and that the violation proximately caused [the] injury’ ” … . “Where a ladder is offered as a work-site safety device, it must be sufficient to provide proper protection. It is well settled that [the] failure to properly secure a ladder, to ensure that it remain[s] steady and erect while being used, constitutes a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1)” … . “[T]he fact that the ladder failed and [that the] plaintiff fell to the ground demonstrates that it was not so placed . . . as to give proper protection to [the plaintiff]” ( … “Evidence that the ladder was structurally sound and not defective is not relevant on the issue of whether it was properly placed” … ).

Here, plaintiff met his initial burden on the motion by submitting his deposition testimony wherein he testified that [an] … employee [of the lessor of the property] covered the ladder’s feet with socks [to protect the tile floor], that [the employee] instructed plaintiff to use the modified ladder, and that the socks caused the ladder to slide and plaintiff to fall. Plaintiff’s unrebutted testimony established that “the statute was violated and that the violation proximately caused his injury” … . Delisle v FBBT/US Props., LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op 03529, Fourth Dept 6-5-26

Practice Point: In this ladder-fall case, the unsecured ladder was not defective. Rather it was deemed “improperly placed” warranting summary judgment. It was alleged that socks placed over the feet of the ladder to protect the tile floor caused the ladder to slide.

 

SUPREME COURT HAD RULED THAT, AT THE TIME HE WAS STRUCK BY A FALLING OBJECT, PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENGAGED IN A TASK COVERED BY THE LABOR LAW; PLAINTIFF’S TASK AT THE EXACT MOMENT OF THE ACCIDENT IS NOT DISPOSITIVE; THE LABOR LAW COVERS ALL TASKS NECESSARY AND INCIDENTAL TO THE RELEVANT WORK, HERE THE REMOVAL OF DEBRIS FROM THE WORKSITE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s activities were within the scope of the Labor Law when he was struck by a falling object. Plaintiff was struck when returning to the truck he had just moved. Defendants successfully argued below that, at the time of his injury, plaintiff was not engaged in work covered by the Labor Law. The First Department disagreed:

Plaintiff was injured when an object, alleged to be a pallet or a skid, fell on his head while he was working as a garbage truck driver at an active construction site owned by defendant MIP One Wall Street Acquisition LLC and where defendant J.T. Magen & Company Inc. was the general contractor. Plaintiff’s employer, Independence Carting, had contracted with J.T. Magen to perform Saturday carting services at the site. Plaintiff drove the garbage truck to the loading area where J.T. Magen laborers tasked with debris removal at the construction site loaded construction debris onto the truck while plaintiff operated the truck’s compacting machinery. J.T. Magen laborers directed plaintiff to move the garbage truck to another location in the loading dock area for additional construction debris to be loaded. At this second location, plaintiff exited the truck to check its position. When returning to the truck he was hit on the head by an object alleged to be a pallet or skid that fell from an elevated platform adjacent to plaintiff’s truck.

Plaintiff’s task at the exact moment of his accident is not dispositive of whether he was engaged in a protected activity … . “Rather, the inquiry includes whether the plaintiff’s employer was contracted to perform the kind of work enumerated in the statutes . . . and whether the plaintiff was performing work ‘necessary and incidental to’ a protected activity” … . Here, plaintiff was performing construction debris removal services at the construction site pursuant to a contract between J.T. Magen and his employer. The record establishes that the work he was performing was necessary and incidental to construction-related cleaning for an active construction site … . Therefore, plaintiff was protected by the Labor Law. Lapinski v MIP One Wall St. Acquisition LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op 03392, First Dept 6-2-26

Practice Point: The exact task performed by a worker at the time of an accident is not dispositive of whether the accident is within the scope of the Labor Law. Here plaintiff’s employer was hired by the general contractor to remove debris from a worksite. The fact that the plaintiff was struck by a falling object after moving a truck at the request of employees of the general contractor did not take the accident out of the scope of the Labor Law.

 

,

THE CONTRACTOR RETAINED PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER TO INSTALL AN OIL TANK; THE CONTRACTOR DID NOT EXERCISE SUPERVISION AND CONTROL OVER PLAINTIFF’S WORK; PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN A PIECE OF THE TANK BROKE OFF AND STRUCK HIM; THE LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON-LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE CONTRACTOR WERE DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s Labor Law 200 and common-law negligence causes of action against a contractor, Controlled Combustion, should have been dismissed. Plaintiff’s employer was retained by Controlled Combustion to install an oil tank. A piece of the tank broke off and struck the plaintiff. Controlled Combustion did not exercise supervisory control over plaintiff’s work:

Controlled Combustion is entitled to dismissal of plaintiff’s Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims because it established that it did not “actually exercise[] supervisory control over” plaintiff’s work … . General oversight, regular inspections, and authority to stop unsafe work are insufficient to impose liability under Labor Law § 200 or common-law negligence … . Plaintiff testified that while installing an oil tank in the basement of a building owned by 2350 Broadway, he was struck by a base piece of the tank when the piece detached and fell from an electric chain hoist, which was owned by his employer. Controlled Combustion, a commercial heating company, was retained to perform work in the building, and it in turn retained plaintiff’s employer to install the oil tank. Plaintiff also testified that his employer came up with the plan to move the base piece with a hoist and that all orders of how to do his job came from his employer, not Controlled Combustion. Rosario v C.C. Controlled Combustion Co., Inc., 2026 NY Slip Op 03279, First Dept 5-26-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into what constitutes “supervision and control” over a plaintiff’s work such that the contractor which hired plaintiff’s employer can be liable to plaintiff under Labor Law 200 and common-law negligence.

 

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