You are here: / Labor Law-Construction Law

PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN AN UNPROTECTED TRENCH CAVED IN AND COLLAPSED; THE ABSENCE OF ANY SAFETY DEVICES, LIKE A SAFETY RAILING, VIOLATED LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) causes of action. Plaintiff was directed to retrieve lumber which was near an unprotected trench. He was injured when the trench caved in and collapsed. The facts that the trench was 10 feet deep, unshored, and without planking, barricades or guardrails demonstrated plaintiff was not provided with an adequate safety device in violation of Labor Law 240(1). The same omissions violated 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(b)(1):

… [T]he plaintiff demonstrated, prima facie, that the defendants violated Labor Law § 240(1) by failing to provide the plaintiff with an adequate safety device and that this violation was a proximate cause of his injuries ….* * *

“To establish liability under Labor Law § 241(6), a plaintiff 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 Labor Law § 241(6) cause of action was predicated, inter alia, on a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(b)(1), “which mandates that holes or hazardous openings at construction sites into which a person may step or fall be guarded by a substantial cover fastened in place or by the installation of a safety railing” … . O’Donnell v Rocklyn Ecclesiastical Corp., 2025 NY Slip Op 06714, Second Dept 12-3-25

Practice Point: If a worker is injured when an unprotected trench caves in, both Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) have been violated.

 

,

GENERALLY A HOMEOWNER WHO DOES NOT DIRECT THE WORK ON THE HOME CANNOT BE HELD LIABLE FOR A LADDER-FALL PURSUANT TO LABOR LAW 240(1); BUT THE HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION DOES NOT APPLY WHEN THE WORK IS RELATED TO A COMMERCIAL PURPOSE; HERE THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE PROPERTY WAS TO BE USED FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there were questions of fact whether the defendant property-owner in this ladder-fall case was entitled to the homeowner’s exemption from Labor Law 240(1) liability because the work related to a commercial purpose:

“Although the Labor Law generally imposes liability for worker safety on property owners and contractors, it exempts from liability ‘owners of one and two-family dwellings who contract for but do not direct or control the work'” ( … Labor Law §§ 240[1]; 241[6]). However, “[t]he exemption ‘was not intended to insulate from liability owners who use their one- or two-family houses purely for commercial purposes'” … . “‘[R]enovating a residence for resale or rental plainly qualifies as work being performed for a commercial purpose'” … . “Where the property serves both residential and commercial purposes, [a] determination as to whether the exemption applies in a particular case turns on the nature of the site and the purpose of the work being performed, and must be based on the owner’s intentions at the time of the injury” … .

Here, the defendant failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether he was entitled to the homeowner’s exemption, including whether the work being performed related to a commercial purpose of the premises … and whether the defendant intended to use the premises as a three-family dwelling … .  Reyes v Rahman, 2025 NY Slip Op 06348, Second Dept 11-19-25

Practice Point: The homeowner’s exemption from Labor Law 240(1) liability does not apply where the home is used for commercial purposes.​

 

,

PLAINTIFF FELL GOING DOWN PERMANENT STEPS AFTER HE STEPPED OFF THE LADDER; THERE WAS NO LIABILITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1)—NO FAILURE OR ABSENCE OF A SAFETY DEVICE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was no liability under Labor Law 240(1) because plaintiff fell going down permanent steps after he stepped off the ladder:

Plaintiff testified that on the day of his accident he was working in a meeting room that had projection screens, soundproof walls, and raised floors, including a platform for the speakers. The platform had two access points — one via a ramp and the other on the opposite side of the platform, via a two-step staircase. Plaintiff needed to work on the ceiling above the platform, so he placed his ladder on the platform near the staircase. After he completed his work, he descended the ladder and placed both feet on the platform floor. He then turned to walk down the two-step staircase, missed a step, and fell.

There is no liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240(1) where the plaintiff’s injuries are not related to the failure of a safety device, such as a ladder, to protect the plaintiff from a gravity-related hazard … . Where the “injury results from a separate hazard wholly unrelated to the risk which brought about the need for the safety device in the first instance, no [Labor Law § 240(1)] liability exists” … . Healy v Trinity Hudson Holdings, 2025 NY Slip Op 06278, First Dept 11-18-25

Practice Point: The failure of absence of a safety device is a prerequisite for liability under Labor Law 240(1). Here plaintiff safely stepped onto a permanent platform from the ladder and then fell going down permanent steps—no Labor Law 240(1) liability.​

 

,

PLAINTIFF TESTIFIED HE WAS STANDING AT THE TOP OF AN UNSECURED A-FRAME LADDER WHEN IT MOVED AND HE FELL; THE FACT THAT THERE WERE NO WITNESSES DID NOT PRECLUDE SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN PLAINTIFF’S FAVOR ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action in this A-frame ladder-fall case. Plaintiff was standing at the top of the unsecured ladder when it moved and he fell. The fact that there were no witnesses to the accident did not raise a question fact because plaintiff’s testimony was not contradicted and his credibility was not called into question:

Plaintiff testified at his deposition that he worked at the top of the ladder, which was unsecured, it suddenly moved and fell, causing him to land on the floor and injure his shoulder. Plaintiff also testified that after he fell from the ladder, he stood it back up before his supervisor returned. The supervisor stated that upon his return to the room, plaintiff, who was standing next to the upright ladder, told him that the ladder was shaky and had fallen because no one was holding it.

Plaintiff made a prima facie showing that his injuries were proximately caused by a violation of Labor Law § 240(1). The evidence established that defendant failed to provide a safety device to ensure that the ladder, which plaintiff was instructed to use, would remain upright while he worked. The evidence also showed that plaintiff fell off the ladder when it shifted and fell … . This evidence was sufficient to establish a prima facie case, and plaintiff was not obligated to show that the ladder itself was defective … . Molina v Chatham Towers, Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 06285, First Dept 11-18-25

Practice Point: To warrant summary judgment in a ladder-fall case, it is enough that the ladder was unsecured and moved. There is no need to show the ladder was defective.

 

PLAINTIFF FELL WHEN A TEMPORARY SCAFFOLD HE HAD BUILT COLLAPSED; DEFENDANTS ARGUED PLAINTIFF DID NOT FOLLOW INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO PROPERLY BUILD THE SCAFFOLD; THE RECALCITRANT-WORKER DEFENSE DID NOT APPLY BECAUSE PLAINTIFF WAS NEVER PROVIDED WITH AN ADEQUATE SAFETY DEVICE AND PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGED COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE WILL NOT DEFEAT A LABOR LAW 240(1) SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s summary judgment motion on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action should have been granted. Defendant raised the recalcitrant worker defense which the First Department found inapplicable. Plaintiff was standing on a scaffold when it collapsed. Defendant argued plaintiff disregarded instructions on how to construct the scaffold, a comparative-negligence argument which  will not defeat a summary judgment motion:

[Defendants’] reliance on the recalcitrant worker defense was misplaced because that defense requires a showing that plaintiff refused to use a safety device that was provided to him … . Defendants’ allegations that plaintiff disregarded instructions on how to properly build the scaffolding, built the scaffolding incorrectly, selected defective wood for its construction, and failed to have the scaffold inspected before its use, are insufficient to establish that plaintiff was a recalcitrant worker … . Indeed, defendants failed to demonstrate whether the scaffolding, if properly constructed, constituted adequate protection under Labor Law § 240(1). Thus, the recalcitrant worker defense “has no application where, as here, no adequate safety devices were provided” … , and any conduct on plaintiff’s part would go to comparative negligence, which is not a defense to a plaintiff’s Labor Law § 240(1) claim … . Peralta v Hunter Roberts Constr. Group LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 05928, First Dept 10-28-25

Practice Point: The recalcitrant-worker defense only applies if plaintiff was provided with an adequate safety device and refuses to use it, not the case here.

 

,

THE COLLAPSE OF A NEIGHBORING STRUCTURE WAS FORESEEABLE; PLAINTIFF, WHO WAS STRUCK BY A PIECE OF CONCRETE FROM THE STRUCTURE, WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the collapse of a neighboring structure which resulted in a piece of concrete striking the plaintiff, was foreseeable. Therefore the plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action:

Contrary to defendants’ position, the event was foreseeable, rendering Labor Law § 240(1) applicable and summary judgment on that claim appropriate … . Whether the collapse of a permanent structure is foreseeable is analyzed “not in a strict negligence sense, but in the sense of foreseeability of exposure to an elevation-related risk” … . Here, the possibility of insecurity in the foundation developing after adjacent demolition was well known to defendants, as evinced by the need for a support plan in the first instance. As noted by an expert engaged by defendants themselves in earlier motion practice, photographs of the facade showed poorly consolidated and deteriorated concrete with numerous voids, obvious discontinuities, several cold unbonded joints, and the appearance of having been constructed without steel reinforcing bars. It was thus foreseeable that the newly exposed and unsupported wall, or a portion thereof, would fail.

Moreover, plaintiffs established that [plaintiff’s] injuries were caused by the lack of any safety device of the kind enumerated in Labor Law § 240(1) to secure the neighboring foundation. Plaintiffs’ expert established that defendants failed to properly underpin the foundation of the adjoining building by bracing and shoring the “poor conditions of the concrete and the obvious presence of cold joints within the excavated pins of the underpinning work.” Moises-Ortiz v FDB Acquisition LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 05746, First Dept 10-16-25

Practice Point: Here the collapse of the neighboring structure, injuring plaintiff, was foreseeable, entitling plaintiff to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240(1) cause of action.

 

, ,

ONE OF THE THREE DEFENDANTS, THE OWNER OF THE OTHER TWO, WAS NOT SHOWN TO BE LIABLE UNDER THE LABOR LAW; THEREFORE THE $10,000,000 PUNITIVE-DAMAGES JUDGMENT AGAINST THE OWNER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED; NEW YORK DOES NOT RECOGNIZE AN INDEPENDENT CAUSE OF ACTION FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the $10,000,000 judgment for punitive damages in this Labor Law 220, 240(1) and 241(6) action, noted that New York does not recognize an independent cause of action for punitive damages. Summary judgment was granted against two defendants. but was denied with respect to Berger, the owner of the other two defendants. The jury was instructed to decide whether to award punitive damages based on Berger’s conduct and did so:

The plaintiff and his wife …, with leave of court, served an amended complaint to add a claim for punitive damages. The defendants answered the amended complaint, and the matter proceeded to a trial limited to the issue of damages. After both parties rested, the jury was instructed to decide whether to award punitive damages based upon conduct of Berger. The jury awarded the plaintiff and his wife punitive damages in the sum of $10,000,000, and the Supreme Court entered a judgment … in favor of the plaintiff and his wife and against the defendants … in the principal sum of $10,000,000 for punitive damages. The defendants appeal from that portion of the judgment.

“New York does not recognize an independent cause of action for punitive damages. Instead, ‘[a] demand or request for punitive damages is parasitic and possesses no viability absent its attachment to a substantive cause of action'” … . Here, the Supreme Court erroneously instructed the jury that the issue of Berger’s liability had already been determined against him, and the jury was not asked to consider Berger’s liability under the Labor Law or otherwise. Because Berger was never determined to be liable with respect to any substantive cause of action, no punitive damages could be awarded based upon his alleged conduct … . Petrosian v B & A Warehousing, Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 05708, Second Dept 10-15-25

Practice Point: Here plaintiffs were awarded a $10,000,000 punitive-damages judgment against a defendant who was not determined to have been liable. New York does not recognize an independent cause of action for punitive damages. The punitive-damages judgment was therefore reversed.

 

,

DEFENDANTS RELIED ON A STATEMENT TRANSLATED FROM SPANISH ATTRIBUTED TO PLAINTIFF BUT FAILED TO SHOW THAT THE TRANSLATION WAS PROVIDED BY A COMPETENT, OBJECTIVE INTERPRETER WHOSE TRANSLATION WAS ACCURATE; THEREFORE THE STATEMENT DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT IN THIS LADDER-FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment in this ladder-fall case. Plaintiff testified the unsecured ladder moved and he fell, which made out a prima facie case under Labor Law 240(1). Defendants attempted to raise a question of fact by submitting a statement plaintiff allegedly made to his foreman in Spanish, but defendants presented no evidence that the translation was accurate:

… [P]laintiff demonstrated his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability on the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240(1) insofar as asserted against the defendants. In support of his motion, the plaintiff submitted, inter alia, a transcript of his deposition testimony, which established that the unsecured ladder moved, causing him to fall … . In opposition, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The documents submitted by the defendants in opposition to the plaintiff’s motion, which relied on a statement the plaintiff allegedly made to his foreman in Spanish, were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. The defendants did not submit any deposition testimony or affidavit from the foreman, and they failed to show that the translation of the statement was provided by a competent, objective interpreter whose translation was accurate … . Batis v 85 Jay St. (Brooklyn), LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 04619, Second Dept 8-13-25

Practice Point: Before a court will consider a statement translated from another language, the party offering the statement must show the translation was provided by a competent, objective interpreter whose translation was accurate.

 

,

PLAINTIFF WAS TAKING DOWN A PLYWOOD FENCE WHEN A PIECE OF PLYWOOD FELL AND STRUCK HIM ON THE HEAD; PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUBMIT SUFFICIENT PROOF THE INCIDENT WAS ELEVATION-RELATED; HIS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. Plaintiff was tasked with taking down a plywood fence when a piece of plywood struck his head. The Second Department held that plaintiff did not present sufficient evidence demonstrating the incident was elevation-related:

With respect to “falling object” cases, “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” … . A plaintiff “must demonstrate that at the time the object fell, it either was being hoisted or secured, or required securing for purposes of the undertaking” … .

Here, the plaintiff failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether the accident was the result of an elevation-related hazard or gravity-related risk encompassed by Labor Law § 240(1) … . The plaintiff failed to establish his height or the height and weight of the plywood sheet that struck him … . Further, the plaintiff failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to how the accident occurred and whether, under the circumstances of this case, this was a situation where a securing device of the kind enumerated in Labor Law § 240(1) would have been necessary or even expected … . Joya v E 31 Partners, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 04461, Second Dept 7-30-25

Practice Point: Here plaintiff was taking down a plywood fence when a piece of plywood “fell” and struck him on the head. The Second Department held plaintiff did not present sufficient evidence to demonstrate the accident was “elevation-related.” Therefore he was not entitled to summary judgment. Before moving for summary judgment consult the statutory requirements for a violation of Labor Law 240(1).​

 

,

THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYEE SUCH THAT THE PROTECTIONS OF THE LABOR LAW APPLY IN THIS LADDER-FALL CASE; DEFENDANT AGREED TO FIX PLAINTIFF’S CAR IN RETURN FOR PLAINTIFF’S FIXING THE ROOF OF DEFENDANT’S REPAIR SHOP (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether the relationship between defendant Houghtaling and plaintiff was an “employment” relationship such that the Labor Law applies to plaintiff’s fall from a ladder. Houghtaling agreed to repair plaintiff’s car in return for plaintiff’s seal-coating the roof of defendant’s automotive repair ship. Houghtaling argued plaintiff was a “volunteer,” not an employee:

… [T]he defendants failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether the plaintiff was a hired worker entitled to the protections of the Labor Law. Houghtaling, who owned and operated the repair shop, testified at his deposition that a friend of the plaintiff had approached him about helping the plaintiff, who was “down and out,” by fixing the plaintiff’s car. Houghtaling responded that the plaintiff should bring in his car and that he would “do the best that [he] c[ould], like [he did] for everybody.” When the plaintiff came in, Houghtaling told him that the repairs would cost $900. The plaintiff asked what he could do for Houghtaling “in return.” According to Houghtaling, the roof of the shop had been leaking for five years and he had intended to fix the roof himself. Houghtaling told the plaintiff that he could seal coat the roof of the shop. Houghtaling performed the repairs on the plaintiff’s car at no charge, and the following weekend, the plaintiff began the work on the roof.

Under these circumstances, triable issues of fact remain as to whether the arrangement between the plaintiff and Houghtaling bore “the traditional hallmarks of an employment relationship” … , including a “mutual obligation . . . revealing an economic motivation for completing the task” and the employer’s right to decide “whether the task undertaken by the employee has been completed satisfactorily” … . Zampko v Houghtaling, 2025 NY Slip Op 04507, Second Dept 7-30-25

Practice Point: The protections of the Labor Law apply where there is a employment relationship between plaintiff and defendant. Here defendant agreed to fix plaintiff’s car in return for plaintiff’s repairing the repair shop’s roof. Plaintiff fell from a ladder when working on the roof. There was a question of fact whether the agreement created an employment relationship entitling plaintiff to the Labor Law protections.

 

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