Labor Law-Construction Law

THE MAJORITY HELD THE INSTALLATION OF AN AIR TANK ON A FLATBED TRAILER WAS NOT A COVERED ACTIVITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1); THE DISSENT ARGUED THE TRAILER WAS A “STRUCTURE” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined plaintiff was not engaged in an activity protected by Labor Law 240(1) when he was injured. Plaintiff, a diesel technician, was injured installing an air tank on a flatbed trailer at a recycling plant. The majority concluded the plaintiff was not involved in construction, renovation or alteration of the recycling plant. The two dissenting justices argued that the truck was a “structure” within the meaning of the Labor Law:

… [P]laintiff, a certified diesel technician, was injured while installing an air tank on a flatbed trailer on the premises of a recycling plant. Inasmuch as plaintiff was “engaged in his ‘normal occupation’ of repairing [vehicles] . . . , a task not a part of any construction project or any renovation or alteration to the [recycling plant] itself,” he was not engaged in a protected activity within Labor Law § 240 (1) at the time of the accident … .

From the dissent:

“Labor Law § 240 (1) provides special protection to those engaged in the ‘erection, demolition, repairing, altering, painting, cleaning or pointing of a building or structure’ ” … . “Over a century ago, the Court of Appeals made clear that the meaning of the word ‘structure,’ as used in the Labor Law, is not limited to houses or buildings . . . The Court stated, in pertinent part, that ‘the word “structure” in its broadest sense includes any production or piece of work artificially built up or composed of parts joined together in some definite manner’ ” … .. … [W]e [have] held that it was error to dismiss a Labor Law § 240 (1) claim because the crane upon which the plaintiff’s decedent was working fit “squarely within” the definition of a “structure” as set forth by the Court of Appeals … . We have also held that a plaintiff engaged in the conversion of a utility van into a cargo van “was engaged in a protected activity at the time of the accident” and that the van was “a structure” … . “Indeed, courts have applied the term ‘structure’ to several diverse items such as a utility pole with attached hardware and cables . . . , a ticket booth at a convention center . . . , a substantial free-standing Shell gasoline sign . . . , a shanty located within an industrial basement used for storing tools . . . , a power screen being assembled at a gravel pit . . . , a pumping station . . . , and a window exhibit at a home improvement show” … . Here, the flatbed trailer upon which plaintiff was working also fits “squarely within” the definition of a “structure” … . Stoneham v Joseph Barsuk, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 06583, Fourth Dept 11-18-22

Practice Point: Plaintiff was installing an air tank on a flatbed trailer when injured. Because the activity was not connected to a construction site, the majority concluded the accident was not covered under Labor Law 240(1). The two dissenters argued the flatbed trailer met the definition of a “structure” within the meaning of Labor Law 240(1).

November 18, 2022

Labor Law-Construction Law

DEFENDANT CITY DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT EXERCISE ANY SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER THE MANNER OF PLAINTIFF’S WORK IN THIS LABOR LAW 200 ACTION; THEREFORE THE CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the city’s motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law 200 cause of action in this construction accident case should have been granted. The city did not exercise any control over the manner of plainitiff’s work:

“Labor Law § 200 is a codification of the common-law duty of property owners and general contractors to provide workers with a safe place to work” … . “Where, as here, the plaintiff’s injuries arise from the manner in which the work is performed, to be held liable under Labor Law § 200, ‘a defendant must have the authority to exercise supervision and control over the work'” … . Evidence of mere general supervisory authority to oversee the progress of the work, to inspect the work product, or to make aesthetic decisions is insufficient to impose liability under Labor Law § 200 … . Here, the City established, prima facie, that it did not exercise any supervision or control over the method or manner in which the plaintiff’s work was performed … . Jarnutowski v City of Long Beach, 2022 NY Slip Op 06474, Second Dept 11-16-22

Practice Point: In order to be liable under Labor Law 200, where the construction-related injury was caused by the manner in which the work was done, the defendant must exercise supervisory control over the work.

November 16, 2022

THE TOWN CONTRACTED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT ON WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED; DEFENDANT CONTRACTED WITH THE TOWN TO HANDLE BIDS FOR THE PROJECT; DEFENDANT WAS NOT AN AGENT FOR THE TOWN AND THE LABOR LAW 240(1), 241(6), 200 AND NEGLIGENCE ACTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court in this Labor Law 240(1), 241(6), 200 and negligence action, determined the defendant was not an agent for the town which had contracted for the work plaintiff was doing when injured. Defendant had contracted with the town to prepare a bid package, solicit bids, obtain grant money and review bids for the construction project:

“An agency relationship for the 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” … . “Thus, unless a defendant has supervisory control and authority over the work being done when the plaintiff is injured, there is no statutory agency conferring liability under the Labor Law” … . Pursuant to the express terms of the contract between the Town and the nonparty contractor—i.e., plaintiff’s employer—as well as the terms of the contract between the Town and defendant, defendant had no control over the means or methods of the performance of the work by the contractor, and it also had no control over safety precautions for the workers at the construction site … .

For those same reasons, it was error to deny defendant’s motion with respect to the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action … . Defendant also established that it did not actually direct or control the work that brought about plaintiff’s injuries, and plaintiff raised no issue of fact with respect thereto. Therefore, it was error to deny defendant’s motion with respect to the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence causes of action … . Smith v MDA Consulting Engrs., PLLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 06389, Fourth Dept 11-10-22

Practice Point: In order for a party to be liable as an agent for the owner in a Labor Law action, the party must have some control over the work the injured plaintiff was engaged in. Here the defendant was in charge of bids for the town’s construction project and exercised no control over the work. The Labor Law causes of action against defendant should have been dismissed.

November 10, 2022

Labor Law-Construction Law, Landlord-Tenant

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY (PANYNJ) WAS THE LESSOR OF THE PROPERTY WHERE PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED IN THIS LABOR LAW 241(6) ACTION, IT WAS AN “OWNER” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE LABOR LAW AND, THEREFORE, WAS A PROPER DEFENDANT; ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF WAS NOT AT THE CONSTRUCTION SITE, SHE WAS IN AN AREA USED TO CREATE MATERIALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION SITE, WHICH IS COVERED BY THE LABOR LAW (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ), although the lessor of the property where plaintiff was injured in this Labor Law 241 (1) action, was an “owner” within the meaning of the Labor Law and therefore was a proper defendant. Although plaintiff was not injured at the construction site, she was injured where materials were being prepared for use in the construction:

PANYNJ failed to establish its entitlement to summary judgment, as the record presents issues of fact as to whether PANYNJ was liable to plaintiff under Labor Law § 241(6). Although PANYNJ leased control of the property to RHCT and transferred responsibility for the maintenance of the terminal to RHCT, PANYNJ was nevertheless the owner of property for purposes of Labor Law § 241(6). The operating agreement between PANYNJ and RHCT permitted RHCT to use the property, and set out conditions on RHCT’s use of the property. The agreement also set forth the scope and manner of the work to be performed and provided that RHCT was required to provide PANYNJ with a monthly profit and loss report. The general manager for PANYNJ testified that RHCT was required to obtain PANYNJ’s consent to sublicense any portion of the property. Additionally, under the purchase order between Tutor Perini and TBTA, the owner of the bridge project, PANYNJ was to be paid a port security charge, among other charges.

As a result, the evidence created a sufficient nexus between PANYNJ and the project, and thus between PANYNJ and plaintiff, to support an imposition of liability under Labor Law § 241(6) … . Plaintiff’s task of grinding bevels on the deck panels to be installed on the bridge also falls under the Labor Law because the protections of the statute extend to areas where materials or equipment are being prepared to be used in construction … .Musse v Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth., 2022 NY Slip Op 06171, First Dept 11-3-22

Practice Point: Although defendant was a lessor of the property where plaintiff was injured in this Labor Law 241(6) action, it was an “owner” within the meaning of the Labor Law and therefore was a proper defendant. Even though plaintiff was not injured at the construction site, the Labor Law applies because she was injured in an area used to prepare materials for the construction site.

November 3, 2022

Labor Law-Construction Law, Landlord-Tenant

THE LESSEE OF THE PROPERTY, INFOR, CONTRACTED FOR THE WORK BEING DONE AT THE TIME OF PLAINTIFF’S INJURY IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION; THEREFORE INFOR WAS AN “OWNER” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE LABOR LAW AND WAS A PROPER DEFENDANT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the lessee of the property (Infor) was a proper party in this Labor Law 240(1) action because it had contracted for the work done at the time of plaintiff’s injury:

Plaintiff claims he was drilling metal tracks onto a wall when the Baker scaffold on which he was standing overturned, causing him to fall and sustain injuries. 635 owned the building in which plaintiff was working, and defendant SL Green Realty Corp. (SL Green) was 635’s managing agent. Infor leased the premises from 635, and retained JRM as the general contractor to perform construction work. JRM, in turn, retained Montec and nonparty Premier Builders, Inc., plaintiff’s employer, as subcontractors to perform various aspects of the work. * * *

The Labor Law § 240(1) claim should be reinstated against Infor, as the court incorrectly concluded that Infor was not a proper Labor Law defendant. Although Infor leased the premises from 635, it may still be held liable as an “owner” under the statute because it contracted for the construction work being performed at the time of plaintiff’s accident … . For the same reasons that plaintiff is entitled to partial summary judgment against 635 and JMR, plaintiff’s motion for partial summary on the Labor Law § 240(1) claim against Infor should be granted, and Infor’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the claim against it should be denied. Otero v 635 Owner LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 06172, First Dept 11-3-22

Practice Point: A lessee may be considered a property “owner” in a Labor Law 240(1) action when the lessee contracted for the work being done when the plaintiff was injured.

November 3, 2022

Labor Law-Construction Law

PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL CARRYING A TANK WHILE WALKING ON THE MUDDY BOTTOM OF AN EXCAVATED HOLE; THE BOTTOM OF THE HOLE WAS NOT A PASSAGEWAY (LABOR LAW 241(6)) AND THERE WAS NO ELEVATION-RELATED RISK (LABOR LAW 240(1); THOSE TWO CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) causes of action should have been granted. Plaintiff slipped and fell walking in a muddy, excavated hole. The bottom of the hole was not a passageway within the meaning of Labor Law 241(6) and there was relevant elevation-related risk:

Plaintiff is not entitled to relief under Labor Law § 241(6) for the alleged violation of Industrial Code § 23-1.7(d), since the “excavation pit” where he slipped and fell, “which at that time was no more than a big hole in the ground with an unfinished muddy bottom[,] … was not the type of flooring or passageway contemplated by” the Industrial Code … . Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, his “accident did not occur on a floor, platform, passageway or similar work area or surface within the purview of [section 23-1.7(d)], but rather on muddy ground in an open area exposed to the elements” … . There was no testimony tending to establish that he was walking along a walkway or path that “workers generally took” … . …

Summary judgment also should have been granted to defendants dismissing plaintiff’s Labor Law § 240(1) claim, because there was no elevation-related risk involved with his carrying a tank on his shoulder while he walked along the ground … . Alvarado v SC 142 W. 24 LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 05584, First Dept 10-6-22

Practice Point: Plaintiff slipped and fell while walking on the muddy bottom of an excavated hole. He was not walking on a passageway, so the Labor Law 241(6) cause of action should have been dismissed. There was no elevation-related risk, so the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action should have been dismissed.

October 6, 2022

Civil Procedure, Evidence, Labor Law-Construction Law

A LATE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD BE ALLOWED WHERE, AS HERE, DISCOVERY WAS NOT COMPLETE AT THE TIME THE MOTION WAS DUE AND THE DISCOVERY IS ESSENTIAL TO THE MOTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) action, determined Supreme Court properly found plaintiff offered a sufficient reason for making a late motion for summary judgment, i.e., discovery was incomplete at the time the motion was due, but should not have denied the motion on the ground the discovery was not essential to the motion. The discovery dealt with whether plaintiff was engaged in unauthorized work at the time of the accident, which is a defense to Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) actions:

A party may not move for summary judgment after the deadline to do so has expired, “except with leave of court on good cause shown” (CPLR 3212[a]). As a result, a court may not consider a late motion for summary judgment unless the moving party offers “a satisfactory explanation for the untimeliness—rather than simply permitting meritorious, nonprejudicial filings, however tardy” … . “While significant outstanding discovery may, in certain circumstances, constitute good cause for a delay in making a motion for summary judgment,” the movant must establish that the discovery was “essential to its motion” … . This standard generally requires that the discovery be relevant to resolving disputed issues of fact … . Even if the discovery is essential, good cause for the delay will only exist if the party promptly moves for summary judgment after securing such discovery … . Fuczynski v 144 Div., LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 05151, Second Dept 9-14-22

Practice Point: Good cause for filing a late motion for summary judgment is demonstrated where, as here, the motion was due before discovery was complete and the discovery is essential to the motion.

September 14, 2022

Appeals, Evidence, Labor Law-Construction Law

PARTY ADMISSIONS WERE NOT HEARSAY AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY SUPREME COURT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1), 241(6), 200 ACTION; THE “PARTY-ADMISSIONS” ARGUMENT, ALTHOUGH NOT RAISED BEFORE SUPREME COURT, CAN BE CONSIDERED AND DEEMED DISPOSITIVE ON APPEAL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined many of the causes of action in this Labor Law 240(1), 241(6) and 200 action should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff’s decedent, Rosa, was electrocuted when working on live electrical equipment. Rosa’s boss, Cuevas (the building manager), testified he told Rosa not to work on the live equipment until he returned with rubber insulation and shut down the power to the building. Decedent’s daughter, however, testified Cuevas told her Rosa had to do the work with the power on because there was an upcoming inspection. Cuevas’ statement was deemed admissible as a party admission and should have been considered by Supreme Court. The “party-admissions” argument was raised for the first time on appeal:

When “a party raises a legal issue for the first time on appeal, as long as the issue is determinative and the record on appeal is sufficient to permit review, this Court may consider the new argument” … . We may also consider this testimony in our discretion because [defendants] also relied on it in support of their summary judgment motion … . …

… [P]laintiff testified to postaccident conversations that Cuevas had with her when he visited Rosa in the hospital, when he admitted to plaintiff that Rosa had to perform the bus duct work without shutting down the electricity because of the imminently scheduled building inspection, so as not to inconvenience the tenants, and to avoid any complaints attendant to a service interruption, such as a lack of elevator service. Cuevas never denied either having those conversations with plaintiff in the hospital or making those statements…. . In any event, assuming hypothetically that these statements were inadmissible hearsay, they may still be considered as they are not the only evidence in this record that the electricity was not shut down when Rosa performed the duct work … . Rosa v 47 E. 34th St. (NY), L.P., 2022 NY Slip Op 05144, First Dept 9-13-22

Practice Point: Party admissions are not hearsay. A legal issue (here “inadmissible hearsay” versus “party admission”) raised for the first time on appeal may be considered where, as here, the record is sufficient and the issue is determinative.

September 13, 2022

Appeals, Labor Law-Construction Law

APPEAL FROM A DENIAL OF A MOTION TO REARGUE CONSIDERED DESPITE THE DISMISSAL OF THE APPEAL FROM THE INITIAL DENIAL OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE; PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION STEMMING FROM A FALL INTO A PIT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined: (1) the appeal from the denial of a motion to reargue would be considered even though the appeal from the initial denial of summary judgment was dismissed for failure to prosecute; (2) the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action stemming from plaintiff’s fall into a pit should not have been dismissed:

“As a general rule, we do not consider any issue raised on a subsequent appeal that was raised, or could have been raised, in an earlier appeal that was dismissed for lack of prosecution, although we have the inherent jurisdiction to do so” … . Since the plaintiff appealed from an order superseding the prior order appealed from at a time before the prior appeal was deemed dismissed, we exercise that discretion here. …

… [T]he defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action … . Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the risk of falling into a 16-foot pit on an excavation site is a type of elevation-related risk within the purview of protection of Labor Law § 240(1) … . Furthermore, the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that the plaintiff’s negligence was the sole proximate cause of his injuries. The deposition testimony of the plaintiff and the foreman, which were submitted in support of the defendants’ motion, contain conflicting testimony raising a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff received instructions not to stand within five feet of the pit. The defendants also did not establish, prima facie, that the installation of a protective device “would have been contrary to the objectives of the work” … . Thorpe v One Page Park, LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 05053, Second Dept 8-24-22

Practice Point: Here the appellate court exercised its discretion to hear an appeal from the denial of a motion to reargue, even though the appeal from the initial denial of summary judgment was dismissed for failure to prosecute.

Practice Point: Plaintiff’s Labor Law 240(1) cause of action stemming from his fall into a pit should not have been dismissed.

August 24, 2022

Labor Law-Construction Law

STORED SHEETROCK PANELS WHICH FELL OVER ON PLAINTIFF DID NOT CONSTITUTE THE KIND OF ELEVATION/GRAVITY-RELATED INCIDENT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined sheetrock panels which were stored upright and fell over on plaintiff did not constitute an elevation-related hazard within the meaning of Labor Law 240(1):

“The extraordinary protections of Labor Law § 240(1) extend only to a narrow class of special hazards, and do ‘not encompass any and all perils that may be connected in some tangential way with the effects of gravity'” … . Therefore, to recover under Labor Law § 240(1), the injured plaintiff “must have suffered an injury as ‘the direct consequence of a failure to provide adequate protection against a risk arising from a physically significant elevation differential'” … .

“With respect to falling objects, Labor Law § 240(1) applies where the falling of an object is related to ‘a significant risk inherent in . . . the relative elevation . . . at which materials or loads must be positioned or secured'” … . “Therefore, a plaintiff must show more than simply that an object fell, thereby causing injury to a worker. A plaintiff must show that, at the time the object fell, it was being hoisted or secured, or that the falling object required securing for the purposes of the undertaking” … .

Here, [defendant] established … the injured plaintiff’s injuries were not caused by an elevation-related or gravity-related risk within the scope of Labor Law § 240(1) … . Parrino v Rauert, 2022 NY Slip Op 04970, Second Dept 8-17-22

Practice Point: Here stored sheetrock panels which fell over on plaintiff did not constitute the kind of elevation/gravity-related incident that is covered by Labor Law 240(1). The facts are not explained. If the sheetrock should have been secured, it would seem Labor Law 240(1) would apply. Apparently defendant demonstrated there was no need to secure the sheetrock?

August 17, 2022

THE MAJORITY HELD THE INSTALLATION OF AN AIR TANK ON A FLATBED TRAILER WAS NOT A COVERED ACTIVITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1); THE DISSENT ARGUED THE TRAILER WAS A “STRUCTURE” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE (FOURTH DEPT).

DEFENDANT CITY DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT EXERCISE ANY SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER THE MANNER OF PLAINTIFF’S WORK IN THIS LABOR LAW 200 ACTION; THEREFORE THE CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

THE LESSEE OF THE PROPERTY, INFOR, CONTRACTED FOR THE WORK BEING DONE AT THE TIME OF PLAINTIFF’S INJURY IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION; THEREFORE INFOR WAS AN “OWNER” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE LABOR LAW AND WAS A PROPER DEFENDANT (FIRST DEPT).

PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL CARRYING A TANK WHILE WALKING ON THE MUDDY BOTTOM OF AN EXCAVATED HOLE; THE BOTTOM OF THE HOLE WAS NOT A PASSAGEWAY (LABOR LAW 241(6)) AND THERE WAS NO ELEVATION-RELATED RISK (LABOR LAW 240(1); THOSE TWO CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

A LATE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD BE ALLOWED WHERE, AS HERE, DISCOVERY WAS NOT COMPLETE AT THE TIME THE MOTION WAS DUE AND THE DISCOVERY IS ESSENTIAL TO THE MOTION (SECOND DEPT).

PARTY ADMISSIONS WERE NOT HEARSAY AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY SUPREME COURT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1), 241(6), 200 ACTION; THE “PARTY-ADMISSIONS” ARGUMENT, ALTHOUGH NOT RAISED BEFORE SUPREME COURT, CAN BE CONSIDERED AND DEEMED DISPOSITIVE ON APPEAL (FIRST DEPT).

APPEAL FROM A DENIAL OF A MOTION TO REARGUE CONSIDERED DESPITE THE DISMISSAL OF THE APPEAL FROM THE INITIAL DENIAL OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE; PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION STEMMING FROM A FALL INTO A PIT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

STORED SHEETROCK PANELS WHICH FELL OVER ON PLAINTIFF DID NOT CONSTITUTE THE KIND OF ELEVATION/GRAVITY-RELATED INCIDENT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1) (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

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