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

THE LABOR LAW CONSTRUCTION-ACCIDENT CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN JOINED OR CONSOLIDATED WITH THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CAUSES OF ACTION STEMMING FROM THE CONSTRUCTION-ACCIDENT INJURIES (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion to join or consolidate the Labor Law construction accident causes of action with the medical malpractice action stemming from the injuries should not have been granted:

Plaintiff commenced suit in Kings County against several construction-related entities alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240, and 241, and common-law negligence in connection with a work place accident causing injuries. After the accident plaintiff was taken to a NYCHHC facility for treatment. Plaintiff also commenced this suit in New York County against NYCHHC, alleging medical malpractice in connection with his post-accident treatment. Although the Labor Law action and this medical malpractice action involve common questions of fact, the medical malpractice action involves numerous additional allegations of professional negligence and injuries that are irrelevant to the Labor law action, and there are no common defendants.

The issues and applicable legal principles presented in plaintiff’s Labor Law action and this medical malpractice action arising out of his subsequent treatment, are so dissimilar that joinder or consolidation pursuant to CPLR 602(a) would not be beneficial and would likely result in jury confusion … . Licona-Rubio v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 2023 NY Slip Op 04722, First Dept 9-26-23

Practice Point: Even though the construction-accident injuries were the basis for the medical malpractice action, the Labor Law and medical malpractice actions (against different defendants) should not have been joined or consolidated.

 

PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN HE ATTEMPTED TO AVOID A FALL FROM A SCAFFOLD WHEN THE PLANK HE WAS STANDING ON SHIFTED; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. Plaintiff was injured when he attempted to avoid a fall from a scaffold when a plank he was standing on shifted:

… [T]he plaintiff made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability on so much of the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240(1) through the submission of the plaintiff’s affidavit and a copy of the transcript of his deposition testimony “which demonstrated that the scaffold failed to afford him proper protection for the work being performed, and that this failure was a proximate cause of his injuries” … . In opposition, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact. “They did not offer any evidence, other than mere speculation, to refute the plaintiff[‘s] showing or to raise a bona fide issue as to how the accident occurred” … . The defendants’ contention that the alleged injuries were only tangentially related to the effects of gravity and/or an elevation-related risk is without merit … .  Wilson v Bergon Constr. Corp., 2023 NY Slip Op 04616, Second Dept 9-13-23

Practice Point: Apparently the plaintiff was injured when he attempted to avoid a fall from a scaffold. It is not clear whether plaintiff actually fell. Even so, he was entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of the action.

 

, , , ,

IN THIS CONSTRUCTION ACCIDENT CASE, DEFENDANTS WERE ENTITLED TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO ANSWER DEPOSITION QUESTIONS ABOUT HIS DRUG AND ALCOHOL USE; THE INFORMATION MAY BE RELEVANT TO LIFE AND/OR WORK-LIFE EXPECTANCY (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, in this construction accident case, determined defendant’s were entitled to compel plaintiff to answer deposition questions about his alcohol and drug use:

“Although physician-patient communications are privileged under CPLR 4504, a plaintiff in a personal injury action will be deemed to have waived the privilege when he or she has affirmatively placed his or her mental or physical condition in issue” … .

Here, the plaintiff asserted … damages claims for future economic loss, including loss of future wages, pension, annuity, and health insurance coverage, based upon certain work-life and life expectancy ages. These claims affirmatively placed at issue the plaintiff’s health and ability to work, and the plaintiff’s work-life expectancy … . In making life expectancy determinations in the course of awarding damages for future lost earnings, juries are permitted to make life expectancy determinations based upon statistical life expectancy tables, together with their own experience and the evidence they have heard in determining what the plaintiff’s life and/or work-life expectancy is, based upon the plaintiff’s health, life habits, employment, and activities … . Hogdahl v LCOR 55 Bank St., LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 04582, Second Dept 9-13-23

Practice Point: In a personal injury case, evidence of plaintiff’s drug and alcohol use may be relevant to life and work-life expectancy (damages).

 

,

PLAINTIFF STORE MANAGER FELL FROM A LADDER WHILE ATTEMPTING TO REPLACE CEILING TILES DAMAGED BY A LEAK IN THE ROOF; PLAINTIFF SUED THE BUILDING OWNER; THE LABOR LAW CAUSES OF ACTION WERE PROPERLY DISMISSED BUT THE COMMON-LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the Labor Law causes of action in this ladder-fall case were property dismissed, but the common law negligence cause of action should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff, the manager of a Dunkin Donuts, fell from the ladder when attempting to replace ceiling tiles damaged by a leak in the roof. Plaintiff sued the building owner:

Labor Law § 241(6) applies only to a narrow class of protected workers engaged in “constructing or demolishing buildings in areas in which construction, excavation or demolition work is being performed” … . * * *

The Labor Law § 200 claim arises from the method of work, involving an inadequate ladder, but defendants exercised no supervisory control over the work, and therefore no liability attaches under Labor Law § 200 … .

… [T]he record raises triable issues of fact as to whether defendants had actual or constructive notice of an unsafe ceiling leak and whether the leak proximately caused plaintiff’s injury. Plaintiff alleged that the leak created a slippery condition on the ladder. Yousuf v Horace Plaza, LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 04492, First Dept 9-7-23

Practice Point: Labor Law 241(6) applies only if plaintiff was injured constructing or demolishing a building. Labor Law 200 (re: method of work) applies only only when defendant exercises supervisory control over the work. Therefore the Labor Law causes of action did not apply to the store manager’s falling from a ladder while attempting to replace ceiling tiles damaged by a leak in the roof.

 

THE COLLAPSE OF A TRENCH IN WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS WORKING WAS AN ELEVATION-RELATED ACCIDENT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1) (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Higgitt, reversing Supreme Court, determined the collapse of a trench in which plaintiff was working was an elevation-related accident covered by Labor Law 240(1):

… [P]laintiff’s injuries were the direct consequence of defendants[‘] … failure to provide adequate protection against a risk arising from a physically significant elevation differential. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to those defendants, the trench was approximately six and a half-feet deep at the time of the incident. Plaintiff is five-and-a-half feet tall and was kneeling at the moment of the right wall’s collapse. There was, therefore, well over a one-foot height differential between the top of the earthen wall and the top of plaintiff’s head. That height differential cannot be characterized as de minimis in light of the extent of that differential, the amount of dirt that poured into the trench when the right wall collapsed suddenly, and the amount of force the dirt was capable of generating … . Moreover, the earthen wall, which required securing for the purposes of the undertaking, collapsed because of the effects of gravity, and the makeshift shoring plainly failed to provide adequate protection against the risk arising from the physically significant elevation differential. The harm to plaintiff flowed directly from the application of the force of gravity to the earthen wall; plaintiff’s injury is directly attributable to the risk posed by the physically-significant elevation differential … . Rivas v Seward Park Hous. Corp., 2023 NY Slip Op 04415, First Dept 8-24-23

Practice Point: The collapse of the inadequately secured wall of the trench in which plaintiff was working was an elevation-related, gravity-related accident covered by Labor Law 240(1). Plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment.

 

PLAINTIFF PLACED THE BOTTOM OF THE LADDER ON SMALL LANDSCAPING ROCKS WHICH GAVE WAY CAUSING PLAINTIFF TO FALL; DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF’S ACTION WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS FALL AND CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE IS NOT A DEFENSE; DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this Labor Law 240(1) action should not have been granted on the ground plaintiff’s actions were the sole proximate cause of the ladder-fall. Plaintiff had placed the bottom of the ladder on top of small “landscaping” rocks and fell when the rocks gave way:

A plaintiff may be the sole proximate cause of his or her own injuries when, acting as a recalcitrant worker, he or she “(1) ‘had adequate safety devices available,’ (2) ‘knew both that’ the safety devices ‘were available and that [he or she was] expected to use them,’ (3) ‘chose for no good reason not to do so,’ and (4) would not have been injured had [he or she] ‘not made that choice'” … .

Here, UNF and Protection One [defendants] failed to establish, prima facie, that the plaintiff’s actions were the sole proximate cause of his injuries … . Although the plaintiff testified at his deposition that he could have placed the ladder in the driveway, where it would not have been resting on the rocks, he further testified that “it wasn’t safe for me to place it there, because that’s where trucks drive in.” Further, UNF and Protection One failed to submit evidence that the plaintiff’s injuries could have been prevented if the plaintiff had secured the ladder to the light pole with ties, which were available at Protection One’s depot, not the job site … . Iannaccone v United Natural Foods, Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 04372, Second Dept 8-23-23

Practice Point: In a ladder-fall Labor Law 240(1) action, the defendant’s placing the ladder on small landscaping rocks which gave way was not deemed to be the sole proximate cause of the accident. Contributory negligence is not considered. Therefore defendants’ summary judgment motion should not have been granted.

 

,

PLAINTIFF IN THIS LADDER-FALL CASE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE BUILDING MANAGEMENT COMPANY WAS ACTING AS THE OWNER’S AGENT OR THAT IT HAD SUPERVISORY AUTHORITY OVER THE WORK; THEREFORE SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS AGAINST THE MANAGEMENT COMPANY ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined summary judgment in this ladder-fall case should not have been granted as against the building manager (Madison) as opposed to the building owner. Plaintiff did not demonstrate Madison was acting as the owner’s agent or that it had supervisory authority over the work. The court noted that the assumption-of-the-risk affirmative defense applies to sports activities, not Labor Law causes of action:

Labor Law § 240(1) imposes liability only on contractors, owners, or their agents. “An agency relationship for purposes of section 240(1) arises only when work is delegated to a third party who obtains the authority to supervise and control the job. Where responsibility for the activity surrounding an injury was not delegated to the third party, there is no agency liability under the statute” … . Here, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate, prima facie, either that Madison was the managing agent for the building or that Madison supervised or controlled any of the work being performed in the building … . Depass v Mercer Sq., LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 04363, Second Dept 8-23-23

Practice Point: In order to hold the building management company liable in this ladder-fall Labor Law 240(1) action, the plaintiff was required to demonstrate the management company was acting as the owner’s agent and had supervisory control over the work. Plaintiff failed to do so.

 

QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS DOING REPAIR WORK OR ROUTINE MAINTENANCE PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined there were questions of fact whether defendant had notice of the dangerous condition created by oil dripping on the floor (Labor Law 200), and whether plaintiff was engaged in repair (covered by Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6)) rather than routine maintenance (not covered) when working on the garage door:

There was evidence in the record that automotive services were being performed on the defendants’ premises by its employees, including changing oil filters and disposing the used oil filters into oil drums, and that oil was dripping from a spigot attached to a barrel close to the location of the plaintiff’s accident. This evidence raises a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendants created a dangerous or defective condition, or had actual or constructive notice of such a condition without remedying it within a reasonable time … . …

… [T]he injured plaintiff testified at his deposition that when the accident occurred, he was attempting to remove a bearing plate in order to replace a broken spring on the garage door. He also testified that one of the bolts of the bearing plate was stripped, so he had to widen the hole so that it would accept another bolt. …

Labor Law § 240(1) applies where an employee is engaged “in the erection, demolition, repairing, altering, painting, cleaning or pointing of a building or structure,” but does not apply to “routine maintenance” … . Here, the evidence raises a triable issue of fact as to whether the injured plaintiff was involved in a repair or routine maintenance at the time of the accident … .

Labor Law § 241(6) applies to construction, excavation, or demolition work. Construction work is defined in 12 NYCRR 23-1.4 as including the “repair, maintenance, painting or moving of buildings or other structures.” Thus, there are triable issues of fact as to whether Labor Law § 241(6) was violated in this matter … . Nusio v Legend Autorama, Ltd., 2023 NY Slip Op 04385, Second Dept 8-23-23

Practice Point: Routine maintenance is not covered by Labor Law 240(1) or 241(6) but repair work is. Here plaintiff was working on the garage door mechanism which required replacement of a stripped bolt. There was a question of fact on the repair versus routine-maintenance question.

 

THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED PLAINTIFF WAS DOING ROUTINE MAINTENANCE WHICH WAS NOT PART OF A CONSTRUCTION OR RENOVATION PROJECT WHEN HE WAS ELECTROCUTED AND FELL FROM A LADDER; THEREFORE THE LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION WERE DISMISSED; THE TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT ARGUED PLAINTIFF WAS “CLEANING” WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240(1) AND WAS DOING CONSTRUCTION OR RENOVATION WORK WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 241(6) (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the work plaintiff was doing was not covered by Labor Law 240(1) or 241(6). Primosch v Peroxychem, LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 04285, Fourth Dept 8-11-23. The Fourth Department concluded plaintiff’s work was routine maintenance, not cleaning covered by Labor Law 240(10, and was not done in connection with construction or renovation work. In a separate decision which incorporated the first, two justices disagreed in a dissent, finding that plaintiff’s work was “cleaning” covered by Labor Law 240(1) and was part of construction or renovation work. The dissent lays out in some detail the proof requirements for “cleaning” within the meaning of Labor Law 240(1). Apparently plaintiff was on a ladder cleaning electrical equipment when he was electrocuted and fell from the ladder. Primosch v Peroxychem, LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 04286, Fourth Dept 8-11-23

Practice Point: The dissent includes a detailed explanation of what constitutes “cleaning” within the meaning of Labor Law 240(1).

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF FELL THROUGH THE FLOOR OF THE BUILDING UNDER RENOVATION WHEN HE WENT IN TO GET A TOOL FOR HIS WORK ON AN ADJACENT BUILDING, HE WAS PERFORMING DUTIES ANCILLARY TO THE CONSTRUCTION WORK AND WAS THEREFORE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION; HEARSAY EVIDENCE IN THE MEDICAL RECORDS WAS NOT ENOUGH TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. Plaintiff was hired to remove carpet from a building adjacent to the building to the building undergoing renovation (the carpet had been damaged by flooding in the building being renovated), Plaintiff went inside the building under renovation to get a tool when he fell through a temporary plywood floor: The court noted that opposition to a summary judgment motion based solely on hearsay does not raise a question of fact:

… [T]he plaintiff was assigned the task of removing damaged carpeting and flooring from a property adjacent to the subject premises, which allegedly had flooded as a result of renovations to the subject premises. When the plaintiff went inside the subject premises to get a tool, he fell through a temporary plywood floor, which consisted of several pieces of plywood placed on top of beams. …

… [P]laintiff established, prima facie, that he was at the subject premises, which was a construction site, in order to perform duties ancillary to the construction work, which was covered by Labor Law § 240(1) … . Further, the plaintiff established that he was exposed to an elevation-related risk for which no safety devices were provided, and that such failure was a proximate cause of his injuries … . In opposition, the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff was engaged in an enumerated activity, whether the plaintiff was recalcitrant in deliberately failing to use available safety devices, or whether his actions were the sole proximate cause of his injuries … . There is no evidence that anyone instructed the plaintiff that he was not to enter the subject premises or that he was to obtain the tools he needed to work on the adjacent property from somewhere else … . To the extent that the defendant contends that the plaintiff’s uncertified hospital records raise a triable issue of fact as how the accident occurred, “[w]hile hearsay may be considered in opposition to a motion for summary judgment, it is insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact where, as here, it is the only evidence upon which opposition to the motion was predicated” … . Estrella v ZRHLE Holdings, LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 03848, Second Dept 7-19-23

Practice Point: Plaintiff was hired to remove carpet from a building adjacent to the building under renovation because flooding caused by the renovation damaged the carpet. Plaintiff fell through the floor of the building under renovation when he went in to get a tool. Plaintiff was doing work ancillary to the renovation and was therefore covered by Labor Law 240(1).

Practice Point: Hearsay standing alone will not raise a question of fact at the summary judgment stage.

 

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