You are here: / 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.

 

,

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.

 

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?

 

,

THE NONPARTY SUBPOENA SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN QUASHED AND THE RELATED PROTECTIVE ORDER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ISSUED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the nonparty subpoena should not have been quashed and the related protective order should not have been issued. The nonparty, Bijari, listed for sale the real property where plaintiff was injured. Plaintiff sought information about the sale because the information could be relevant to whether the homeowner’s exemption to Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) applied:

CPLR 3101(a)(4), concerning disclosure from nonparties to an action, provides that “[t]here shall be full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action, regardless of the burden of proof, by: . . . any other person, upon notice stating the circumstances or reasons such disclosure is sought or required” … .. Under that statute, the party who served the subpoena has an initial minimal obligation to show that the nonparty was apprised of the circumstances or reasons that the disclosure is sought … . Once that is satisfied, it is then the burden of the person moving to quash a subpoena to establish either that the requested disclosure “is utterly irrelevant to the action or that the futility of the process to uncover anything legitimate is inevitable or obvious” … . …

For a protective order to be issued, the party seeking such an order must make a “factual showing of ‘unreasonable annoyance, expense, embarrassment, disadvantage, or other prejudice'” … . “‘Trial courts are vested with broad discretion to issue appropriate protective orders to limit discovery. . . . [T]his discretion is to be exercised with the competing interests of the parties and the truth-finding goal of the discovery process in mind'” … . Here, Bijari failed to make the requisite showing pursuant to CPLR 3103(a) to warrant the issuance of a protective order with regard to the subpoena…. . Nunez v Peikarian, 2022 NY Slip Op 04969, Second Dept 8-17-22

Practice Point: Here in this Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) action the plaintiff subpoenaed a nonparty who listed for sale the property where plaintiff was injured. The information plaintiff sought was relevant to whether the homeowner’s exemption to Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) applied. The subpoena should not have been quashed and the related protective order should not have been issued.

 

THE SMALL CONCRETE PEBBLES UPON WHICH PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY SLIPPED DID NOT CONSTITUTE A “SLIPPERY CONDITION” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE INDUSTRIAL CODE AND WERE NOT IN A “PASSAGEWAY” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE INDUSTRIAL CODE; THE LABOR LAW 241(6) ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the Industrial Code did not apply to the small concrete pebbles on which plaintiff allegedly slipped when attempting to install a heavy glass divider:

When plaintiff stepped forward to place the glass into the track, he stepped onto “minute” pebbles near the track. His right foot slipped forward a few inches, but he did not fall. Plaintiff claims that he sustained injuries, not only because of pebbles he slipped on, but also because of [his employer’s] decision to remove one worker from his team when he undertook to move the glass.

… Neither of the Industrial Code regulations that plaintiff relies on apply to the accident. The floor was not in “a slippery condition” nor were the pebbles a “foreign substance which may cause slippery footing” within the meaning of Industrial Code § 23-1.7(d) … . Section 23-1.7 (e)(2) of the Industrial Code also does not apply as this was not a passageway, within the meaning of the regulation. In any event, the pebbles were debris that were an integral part of the construction work. The integral to the work defense applies to things and conditions that are an integral part of the construction, not just to the specific task a plaintiff may be performing at the time of the accident … . Ruisech v Structure Tone Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 04941, First Dept 8-16-22

Practice Point: Small pebble-sized pieces of concrete are an integral part of the construction and therefore do not constitute a slippery “foreign substance” within the meaning of the Industrial Code. The Labor Law 241(6) action should have been dismissed.

 

THE INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION WHICH WAS THE BASIS OF THE LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION DID NOT APPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S DEMOLITION-WORK-INJURY; THE DEFENDANT GENERAL CONTRACTOR DID NOT EXERCISE SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER PLAINTIFF’S WORK AND WAS NOT, THEREFORE, LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 200 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the Industrial Code provision which was the basis of the Labor Law 241(6) cause of action did not apply to plaintiff’s demolition-work-injury and defendant general contractor (Lad) did not exercise supervisory control over defendant’s work and was not therefore liable under Labor Law 200:

… [T]he cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 241(6) is predicated on Industrial Code 12 NYCRR 23-3.3(c), which mandates continuing inspections during hand demolition operations to detect hazards “resulting from weakened or deteriorated floors or walls or from loosened material.” … [Defendant] established …the inapplicability of this provision by demonstrating that the hazard arose from the plaintiff’s actual performance of the demolition work itself, and not structural instability caused by the progress of the demolition … . …

“Although property owners [and general contractors] often have a general authority to oversee the progress of the work, mere general supervisory authority at a 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” or for common-law negligence … . “A defendant has the authority to supervise or control the work for the purposes of Labor Law § 200 when that defendant bears the responsibility for the manner in which the work is performed” … .

Here, Lad established, prima facie, that it did not possess the authority to supervise or control the means and methods of the plaintiff’s work … . Flores v Crescent Beach Club, LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 04901, Second Dept 8-10-22

Practice Point: Here the cited Industrial Code provision did not apply to plaintiff’s Labor Law 241(6) demolition-work-injury cause of action and Labor Law 200 did not apply to defendant general contractor which did not exercise supervisory control over plaintiff’s work.

 

ALTHOUGH THERE WAS EVIDENCE PLAINTIFF’S USE OF A LADDER INSTEAD OF THE SCISSORS LIFT CREATED THE SAFETY ISSUE LEADING TO PLAINTIFF’S FALL IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION, THERE WAS EVIDENCE THE OPERATOR OF THE SCISSORS LIFT WOULD NOT ALLOW PLAINTIFF TO ACCESS IT, RAISING A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S USE OF A LADDER WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT; THERE WAS A SUBSTANTIAL DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a substantial dissent, determined plaintiff’s Labor Law 240(1) action should have survived summary judgment. Plaintiff fell from a ladder attempting to pass sheet rock to another worker on a scissors lift. The dissent argued plaintiff should have used the scissors lift and therefore was the sole proximate cause of the fall. There was evidence the operator of the scissors lift refused to reposition it to allow plaintiff to access it, and, therefore, plaintiff’s use of the ladder was not the sole proximate case of his fall:

With respect to the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, we conclude that defendants did not meet their initial burden of establishing as a matter of law that plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of the accident … . … [D]efendants established that the coworker, who was operating and standing in the scissor lift at the time of the accident, denied plaintiff’s request for access to the device by refusing to reposition it to allow plaintiff to safely lift the sheetrock into place. We note that “[i]t is well established that there may be more than one proximate cause of an injury” … , and that “[q]uestions concerning . . . proximate cause are generally questions for the jury” … .

Our dissenting colleague argues that the court properly concluded that, as a matter of law, plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of the accident because he chose to use the ladder instead of the scissor lift. The court’s conclusion was based on plaintiff’s deposition testimony admitting that use of the scissor lift was the proper and expected way to perform the task of lifting the sheetrock. We disagree with the dissent’s conclusion. Although plaintiff testified that the scissor lift was the proper device to use for his work, that statement alone does not, under the unique circumstances of this case, establish that plaintiff knew that the scissor lift was “available” and “chose for no good reason” not to use it … . Further, “[w]here causation is disputed, summary judgment is not appropriate unless only one conclusion may be drawn from the established facts” … and, here, in light of the coworker’s alleged conduct, the evidence is not conclusive about whether plaintiff chose to use the ladder over an “available” scissor lift for “no good reason.” Thomas v North Country Family Health Ctr., Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 04836, Fourth Dept 8-4-22

Practice Point: Apparently use of a scissors lift, not a ladder, was the appropriate method for the work. Plaintiff fell from a ladder attempting to do the work. There was evidence the operator of the scissors lift would not allow plaintiff to access it. Therefore plaintiff’s use of the ladder may not have been the sole proximate cause of the fall and the defense motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action should not have been granted. There was a substantial dissent.

 

THE ELECTRICAL STUB UP OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED IN THIS LABOR LAW 241(6) ACTION WAS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE CONSTRUCTION; THE INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISIONS REQUIRING PASSAGEWAYS TO BE KEPT CLEAR OF DEBRIS GENERALLY DO NOT APPLY TO AN OBSTRUCTION WHICH IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF CONSTRUCTION; HERE THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE SAFETY MARKERS CALLING ATTENTION TO THE STUB UPS APPARENTLY BROUGHT THE FACTS WITHIN THE REACH OF THOSE “KEEP PASSAGEWAYS FREE OF DEBRIS” CODE PROVISIONS (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the Industrial Code provisions which require passageways to be kept clear of debris applied to electric “stub ups” which protrude from the floor, even though the stub ups are integral parts of the construction, to which those Code provisions do not apply. Apparently the absence of safety markers calling attention to the stub ups was deemed to be covered by those “free of debris” Code provisions:

Although neither subdivision (1) nor (2) of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(e) applies where the object over which the plaintiff trips is an integral part of construction …, that exception does not apply here. While it is undisputed that the stub up was an integral part of the construction, none of the defendants have pointed to evidence that it was necessary that the stub ups be unmarked or that safety markings or other protective measures would have interfered with the work … . Murphy v 80 Pine, LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 04811, Second Dept 8-3-22

Practice Point: The Industrial Code provisions requiring passageways to be kept clear of debris do not apply to tripping hazards that are integral parts of construction. Here the electrical stub up over which plaintiff tripped was an integral part of construction. Nevertheless, the Second Department deemed the Code provisions to apply because of the absence of safety markers to alert workers to the location of the stub ups (which protrude from the floor).

 

PLAINTIFF IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION FELL FROM AN INVERTED BUCKET HE WAS STANDING ON TO REACH A POWER CABLE; DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THERE WAS NO NEED FOR PLAINTIFF TO ELEVATE HIMSELF TO DO HIS JOB; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS INJURY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. Plaintiff fell off an inverted bucket when he was installing stacked washers and dryers. Defendant demonstrated plaintiff did not need to elevate himself to do the work:

According to the plaintiff, on the day at issue, he was standing on an inverted bucket in order to reach the power cable for the stacked washer dryer unit that he had just pushed into the closet before he had plugged in the power cable. The plaintiff contended that the power cable was resting on top of the dryer and was out of reach, and that the washer dryer unit, although on wheels, was difficult to move, so he stood on an inverted bucket to reach the power cable. The plaintiff alleged that the bucket slipped out from under him and he fell and was injured. …

… [T]he plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his injuries because his conduct unnecessarily exposed him to an elevation-related risk … . The plaintiff’s deposition testimony … established that a ladder was not necessary for the plaintiff to do his work. The plaintiff testified that each of the stacked washer and dryer units that he was installing was on wheels and not secured within the closet in which they were being installed. … [P]rior to the incident, he had installed approximately 20 stacked washer and dryer units without using a ladder. … [W]ith respect to the unit he was installing on the day at issue, in order to reach the power cable, he could have moved the stacked washer and dryer out of the closet rather than stand on an inverted bucket, but he chose not to do so. Morales v 50 N. First Partners, LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 04801, Second Dept 8-3-22

Practice Point: In this unusual Labor Law 240(1) action, the defendants demonstrated plaintiff did not need to stand on an inverted bucket to do his job. Therefore plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his fall (from the bucket) and defendants were entitled to summary judgment.

 

PLAINTIFF FELL THROUGH PLANKING WHICH DID NOT ADEQUATELY PROTECT A SHAFT OPENING; THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF’S FOREMAN INSTRUCTED PLAINTIFF NOT TO ENTER THE SHAFT SPEAKS TO COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE WHICH IS NOT A BAR TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON A LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on his Labor Law 240(1) cause of action should have been granted. The fact that plaintiff’s employer instructed him not to enter the shaft where plaintiff fell to the floor below spoke to comparative negligence which is not a bar to summary judgment on a Labor Law 240(1) cause of action:

The injured plaintiff allegedly was injured when he stepped onto aluminum planks that lay across the unobstructed shaft opening on the sixteenth floor. The planks gave way beneath him and caused him to fall to a platform across the shaft on the fifteenth floor. * * *

… [Deposition testimony] established that the shaft opening was not properly protected so as to prevent workplace accidents … . … [Defendants] failed to establish, as a matter of law, that the injured plaintiff’s failure to heed the instructions of the … foreman … not to enter the shaft constituted the sole proximate cause of his injuries because “an instruction by an employer or owner to avoid using unsafe equipment or engaging in unsafe practices is not a ‘safety device’ in the sense that plaintiff’s failure to comply with the instruction is equivalent to refusing to use available, safe and appropriate equipment” … . “A worker’s injury in an area of the work site where the worker was not supposed to be amounts to comparative negligence, which is not a defense to a Labor Law § 240(1) claim” … . Zong Wang Yang v City of New York, 2022 NY Slip Op 04761, Second Dept 7-27-22

Practice Point: Plaintiff fell through planking placed over a shaft after he was instructed not to enter the inadequately protected shaft-area. Failure to heed the instruction speaks to comparative negligence which is not a bar to summary judgment on a Labor Law 240(1) cause of action.

 

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