You are here: / Labor Law-Construction Law
, ,

IN REINSTATING THE ACTION AFTER VACATING THE ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANTS’, THE SECOND DEPARTMENT EXPLAINED WHAT SHOULD BE ALLEGED IN A COMPLAINT FOR LABOR LAW 240(1), 241(6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to vacate the order granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this Labor Law 240(1), 241(6) and 200 action should have been granted. Plaintiff fell through the roof of the building he was working on. Apparently plaintiff failed to answer the summary judgment motion because of law office failure. In reinstating the action, the Second Department noted that the causes of action had been adequately pled as follows:​

“‘Labor Law § 240(1) imposes a nondelegable duty upon owners and general contractors to provide safety devices to protect workers from elevation-related risks'” … . “‘To impose liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240(1), there must be a violation of the statute and that violation must be a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries'” … . Here, the plaintiff alleged that his fall through the roof was the result of an elevation-related hazard caused by the failure to keep necessary safety devices in place and identified the defendants as the owners of the premises. …

“‘Labor Law § 241(6) imposes on owners and contractors a nondelegable duty to provide reasonable and adequate protection and safety to persons employed in, or lawfully frequenting, all areas in which construction, excavation or demolition work is being performed'” … . “‘To establish liability under Labor Law § 241(6), a plaintiff or a claimant must demonstrate that his [or her] injuries were proximately caused by a violation of an Industrial Code provision that is applicable under the circumstances of the case'” … . Here, the plaintiff alleged that he was employed in an area where construction was being performed and that his injuries were proximately caused by the failure to comply with applicable statutes, ordinances, rules, and regulations. ….

“‘Labor Law § 200 essentially codifies landowners’ and general contractors’ common-law duty to maintain a safe workplace'” … . “‘Where a plaintiff’s claims implicate the means and methods of the work, an owner or contractor will not be held liable under Labor Law § 200 unless it had the authority to supervise or control the performance of the work'” … . Here, the plaintiff alleged that the defendants failed to provide a safe place to work and that the defendants controlled and supervised the work at issue. Bayron Chay Mo v Ultra Dimension Place, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 01338, Second Dept 3-12-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for a clear explanation of what should be alleged in the complaint for Labor Law 240(1), 241(6) and 200 causes of action.

 

PLAINTIFF’S WORK, DELIVERING TILES TO THE WORK SITE, WAS COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1) AS “NECESSARY AND INCIDENTAL” TO THE PROTECTED CONSTRUCTION-ACTIVITY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s work, delivering tiles to the construction site, was covered by Labor Law 240(1). Therefore plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment for injury suffered after stepping in the two-foot-deep hole near the loading ramp:

Labor Law § 240(1) protects persons engaged “in the erection, demolition, repairing, altering, painting, cleaning or pointing of a building or structure.” The task that a plaintiff is performing at the exact moment of their accident is not dispositive of whether they were engaged in a protected activity for purposes of liability under this statute … . 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 … . Because plaintiff’s work in delivering and unloading tiles to be used in the activity covered by Labor Law § 240(1) was “necessary and incidental” to the protected activity, he was within the class of workers protected by those statues, notwithstanding that he was not assigned to participate in the installation of the tiles … . Rodriguez v Riverside Ctr. Site 5 Owner LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 00411, First Dept 1-28-25

Practice Point: Although plaintiff was not involved in installation of the tiles, delivery of the tiles to the work site was a protected activity pursuant to Labor Law 240(1) as “necessary and incidental” to the installation.

 

,

PLAINTIFF WAS CROUCHING DOWN MARKING THE FLOOR WITH DUCT TAPE WHEN A LADDER FELL OVER AND STRUCK HIM; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defense motion for judgment for summary judgment in this Labor Law 240(1) action should not have been granted and plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment should have been granted. Plaintiff was crouching down marking off areas of the floor with duct tape when an ladder fell over and struck him, causing him to lose consciousness:

The elevation differential involved here cannot be described as de minimis … . The evidence also established that the ladder was not adequately secured for the purposes of the undertaking … .

… [P]laintiff established prima facie entitlement to summary judgment through his deposition testimony that he was struck by a ladder that was not properly secured. … [I]t was foreseeable for a ladder resting against a wall to topple over and strike a nearby worker. Nor could a worker knocking over the ladder be considered an intervening superseding cause in this case … . Silva v 770 Broadway Owner LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 00299, First Dept 1-21-25

Practice Point: Here plaintiff was marking the floor with duct tape when a ladder which had been leaning against a wall fell over and struck him. It was foreseeable that an unsecured ladder could fall over. If a worker knocked it over, that would be foreseeable as well and would not be a superseding cause.

 

,

PLAINTIFF WAS WORKING ON POWER LINES WHILE SUSPENDED FROM A HELICOPTER WHEN THE HELICOPTER LOST CONTROL AND CRASHED; PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 200, 240 AND 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION WERE NOT PREEMPTED BY THE FEDERAL AVIATION ACT (FAA) (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Egan, over a two-justice dissent, determined the Federal Aviation Act (FAA) did not preempt New York’s Labor Law protections for workers. Plaintiff was working on power lines and towers while suspended from a helicopter when the helicopter collided with a structure, lost control and crashed. Plaintiff sued the general contractor for failure to provide adequate safety devices. This lawsuit did not include the helicopter company or seek damages for negligent operation of the helicopter (apparently addressed by other lawsuits against different defendants):

Plaintiff’s complaint … asserted claims against defendant as the general contractor on the project alleging that defendant was negligent and violated Labor Law §§ 200, 240 and 241 (6), as well as the Industrial Code (see 12 NYCRR 23-1.7). * * *

… [T]he FAA “contained a saving provision preserving pre-existing statutory and common-law remedies” …, and it continues to authorize “any other remedies provided by law” in addition to the ones created by the FAA … . In other words, the FAA contemplates that state law remedies survive its enactment and may be pursued within its purview, including “state law personal injury suits” … . The question is accordingly not whether the FAA preempts all state law claims that somehow intersect with air safety — its own terms make clear that it does not — but whether the claims arise in the area of air safety and “interfere with federal laws and regulations sufficiently to fall within the scope of the preempted field” … . …

Plaintiff’s claims … arise out of the state’s police power to regulate occupational health and safety issues, not aviation, and defendant points to “nothing in [the FAA or implementing regulations] indicating that Congress meant to affect state regulation of occupational health and safety, or the types of damages that may be recovered” for a violation of those workplace safety standard … . Scaletta v Michels Power, Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 00258, Third Dept 1-16-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for a discussion of field and conflict preemption issues in the context of the Federal Aviation Act and New York’s Labor Law protections for workers. Plaintiff was suspended from a helicopter working on power lines when the helicopter lost control and crashed.

 

,

THE CONTRACTOR THAT HIRED THE SUBCONTRACTOR FOR WHICH THE INJURED PLAINTIFF WORKED WAS THE CONDOMINIUM DEFENDANTS’ STATUTORY AGENT AND THEREFORE CAN BE HELD LIABLE IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendant Chelsea, the contractor that hired the subcontractor, Prince, for which the injured plaintiff worked, was the statutory agent of the condominium defendants in this Labor Law 240(1) case. Therefore the action against Chelsea should not have been dismissed:

Supreme Court improperly dismissed Chelsea from this action on the ground that it is not the condo defendants’ statutory agent for purposes of Labor Law § 240(1) liability. Chelsea was the only contractor that the condo defendants retained to perform their window-washing project, and Chelsea cannot escape liability under Labor Law § 240(1) because it delegated the work by subcontracting it to Prince, plaintiff’s employer … . Chelsea’s authority to supervise and control the work is also demonstrated by its subcontracting the work to Prince, and whether Chelsea actually supervised plaintiff’s work is irrelevant … . Barreto v Board of Mgrs. of 545 W. 110th St. Condominium, 2025 NY Slip Op 00185, First Dept 1-14-25

Practice Point: Liability under Labor Law 240(1) extends to the statutory agent of the property owner, here the contractor that hired the subcontractor for which the injured plaintiff worked.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF WAS NOT IN AN AREA IN WHICH FALLING OBJECTS COULD BE ANTICIPATED, SO THE LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A BOARD INTENTIONALLY THROWN INTO THE EXCAVATED AREA WHERE HE WAS WORKING; THE LABOR LAW 200 AND NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) causes of action should have been dismissed. Plaintiff was in an excavated area four or five feet below ground level when a worker at ground level threw a board into the excavated area which struck plaintiff. Apparently throwing boards into the excavated area was part of the work, so the Labor Law 200 and negligent supervision causes of action survived:

Defendant thus demonstrated prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by showing that plaintiff was not injured by an “object [that] fell, while being hoisted or secured, because of the absence or inadequacy of a safety device of the kind enumerated in the statute” … .T he burden thus shifted to plaintiff to raise a triable issue of fact, which plaintiff failed to do” … , requiring dismissal of the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action. * * *

Defendant’s proof showed that the dig area was not “normally exposed to falling material or objects” (12 NYCRR 23-1.7 [a] [1]), and, in any event, plaintiff was working only four to five feet below grade. Thus, defendant demonstrated the “overhead protection” regulation was not applicable … . Accordingly, defendant met its preliminary burden to show that plaintiff could not recover under Labor Law § 241 (6) as a matter of law … . Plaintiff’s proof does not raise an issue of fact on this point, thus dismissal of the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim should have been granted … . James v Marini Homes, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 00132, Second Dept 1-9-25

Practice Point: If the safety precautions related to falling objects are not applicable because the plaintiff was working in an area where falling objects could not be anticipated, then the “falling objects” protections in Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) will not be triggered.

 

,

PLAINTIFF FELL FROM A SCAFFOLD WITHOUT GUARDRAILS; DEFENDANTS’ EVIDENCE THAT GUARDRAILS WERE AVAILABLE WAS NOT STRONG ENOUGH TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff in this scaffold-fall case was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. Defendants argued that guardrails for the scaffold were available but plaintiff failed to use them. The First Department held that the evidence of the availability of the guardrails was not strong enough to raise a question of fact:

“Liability under section 240(1) does not attach when the safety devices that plaintiff alleges were absent were readily available at the work site, albeit not in the immediate vicinity of the accident” … . Caselaw has not further defined the meaning of “readily available,” beyond qualifying that a safety device need not be “in the immediate vicinity.” Nonetheless, the seminal Gallagher case itself specifies that the worker should at least “kn[o]w where to find the safety devices” … . Conversely, a defendant may do much to show that safety devices were readily available by showing that the worker knew “exactly where they could be found” … .

While defendants indicated that workers were generally aware that railings were available throughout the site, defendants failed to show that their precise locations were made known to the workers. The affidavits of the three foremen and coworker are conclusory, the record does not specify or even approximate the location of the guardrails, and at oral argument, counsel was unable to specify where these safety devices could be found. Moreover, although the record contains photos of the subject scaffold, there are no photographs of the missing guardrails that might serve as a guide to their possible location. Defendant’s proof demonstrated only “[t]he general availability of safety equipment at a work site [which] does not relieve the defendants of liability” … . Perez v 1334 York, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 00066, First Dept 1-7-25

Practice Point: Although a defendant may escape liability in a Labor Law 240(1) action if the plaintiff failed to use available safety equipment, proof of the “general availability” of the safety equipment does not raise a question of fact. The proof of available safety equipment must be specific. Here there was no evidence the defendants even knew where the safety devices were.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO RENEW HIS SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; NO “NEW FACTS” WERE DEMONSTRATED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court in this Labor Law 240(1) action, determined plaintiff’s motion to renew his summary judgment motion should not have been granted. Plaintiff was attempting to disassemble a freezer when the freezer roof collapsed and he fell to the floor:

Pursuant to CPLR 2221, a motion for leave to renew “shall be based upon new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination” and “shall contain reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion” … . In his motion for leave to renew and reargue, plaintiff sought to admit a supplemental expert affidavit in which plaintiff’s expert sought to clarify that accessing the freezer’s ceiling was an essential task of disassembly. Plaintiff averred that this information was not proffered before because he was not on notice that he needed to address the different tasks required for disassembly. However, our review of the original motion papers reveals that, not only did the expert’s original affidavit briefly address the need for plaintiff to climb on top of the freezer, but also that [defendant’s] affirmations in opposition were sufficient to put plaintiff on notice that the necessity of plaintiff’s work on the ceiling would be at issue … . Additionally, as plaintiff had already retained an expert, there was nothing preventing plaintiff from submitting additional evidence in reply to [defendant’s] affirmations in opposition, prior to the court’s original determination … .Therefore, Supreme Court improperly granted plaintiff’s motion to renew, and plaintiff’s supplemental expert affidavit should not be considered on summary judgment … . Burgos v Darden Rests., Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 00009, Third Dept 1-2-25

Practice Point:  A motion to renew a summary judgment motion must be based upon new facts which could not have been addressed in the initial motion, not the case here.

,

PLAINTIFF WAS REPAIRING THE FLASHING ON THE ROOF, NOT DOING ROUTINE MAINTENANCE, AT THE TIME HE WAS INJURED ENTITLING HIM TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was performing repairs, not routine maintenance, when he was injured, entitling him to summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action:

“Delineating between routine maintenance and repairs is frequently a close, fact-driven issue . . . , and that distinction depends upon whether the item being worked on was inoperable or malfunctioning prior to the commencement of the work . . . , and whether the work involved the replacement of components damaged by normal wear and tear” … . Here, the testimony submitted by plaintiffs established, and the court found, that the rubber flashing was malfunctioning and inoperable prior to replacement and that the work being performed by plaintiff at the time of the accident was necessary to restore the proper functioning of the roof. To the extent that defendant asserts that the flashing plaintiff was repairing at the time of his fall was not actively leaking, such a contention is immaterial to whether plaintiff was performing a protected activity, inasmuch as it would be “[in]consistent with the spirit of the [Labor Law] to isolate the moment of injury and ignore the general context of the work” … .

Further, contrary to the court’s determination, we agree with plaintiffs that the rubber flashing was not merely a “component” of a ventilation system and instead was an integral part of a proper functioning roof. Here, plaintiff was performing roofing repair to ensure that the roof of the concession stand was no longer leaking—precisely the type of work that we have long held to be protected by Labor Law § 240 (1) … . Verhoef v Dean, 2024 NY Slip Op 06465, Fourth Dept 12-20-24

Practice Point: Here plaintiff was repairing the roof when he was injured. He was not performing routine maintenance. He was therefore entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action.

 

PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A LADDER WHICH FELL BECAUSE IT WAS PLACED ON A SLIPPERY MAT; PLAINTFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION; DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 241(6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motions for summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1), 241(6) and 200 causes of action should not have been granted. In addition, plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on the Labor law 240(1) cause of action. Plaintiff was working at ground level. A coworker placed a ladder on a mat which was covered with cow manure and started climbing the ladder. The ladder slipped on the mat and fell, hitting plaintiff on the head:

​The failure to properly place and secure the ladder amounted to a violation of Labor Law § 240(1) … . Moreover, the violation of Labor Law § 240(1) proximately caused the plaintiff’s injuries because the plaintiff was injured when the ladder “proved inadequate to shield [him] from harm directly flowing from the application of the force of gravity to an object or person” … . …

… [T]he coworker’s improper placement of the ladder was not of such an extraordinary nature or so attenuated from a violation of Labor Law § 240(1) as to sever the causal nexus between the defendant’s statutory violation and the plaintiff’s injuries … . …

“In order to prevail on a Labor Law § 241(6) cause of action premised upon a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.8(c)(1), the plaintiff must establish that the job was a hard hat job, and that the plaintiff’s failure to wear a hard hat was a proximate cause of his [or her] injury” … . Here, the defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that the relevant work was not a hard hat job or that the plaintiff’s lack of head protection played no role in the injuries he sustained when he was struck in the head by the ladder … .

12 NYCRR 23-1.21(b)(4)(ii) provides that “[a]ll ladder footings shall be firm. Slippery surfaces and insecure objects such as bricks and boxes shall not be used as ladder footings.” Here, the defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that the rubber mat covered with cow manure and hay was not a slippery surface for the purpose of 12 NYCRR 23-1.21(b)(4)(ii). …

“Labor Law § 200 is a codification of the common-law duty of an owner or employer to provide employees with a safe place to work” … . … When a claim is based on an alleged dangerous condition of a work site, the defendant may be liable where he or she had actual or constructive notice of the condition or created the condition … . A defendant has constructive notice of a defect when it is visible and apparent and has existed for a sufficient length of time before the accident such that it could have been discovered and corrected … . Here, the defendant’s conclusory statements in his affidavit that he did not recall having entered the barn on the day of the accident and that he was unaware of the plaintiff’s accident were insufficient to establish, prima facie, that he did not have actual or constructive notice of the alleged slippery condition … . Wright v Pennings, 2024 NY Slip Op 06233, Second Dept 12-11-24

Practice Point: A coworker placed a ladder on a slippery mat and the ladder fell and struck plaintiff when the coworker started to climb it. Plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. The coworker’s actions did not sever the causal connection between the statutory violation (an unsecured ladder) and plaintiff’s injuries.

 

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy