You are here: / Labor Law-Construction Law
,

HERE THE OWNER AND GENERAL CONTRACTOR DEMONSTRATED THEY DID NOT EXERCISE SUPERVISION AND CONTROL OVER THE WORK PLAINTIFF WAS DOING WHEN INJURED; THEREFORE THE LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THEM SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; THE COURT NOTED THAT THE RIGHT TO GENERALLY SUPERVISE THE WORK OR TO STOP THE WORK FOR SAFETY VIOLATIONS DOES NOT CONSTITUTE “SUPERVISION AND CONTROL” OF THE WORK WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 200 OR COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, dismissing the Labor Law 200 and negligence causes of action against the owner and general contractor, noted that the right to generally supervise the work, to stop the work for a safety violation or to ensure compliance with safety regulations does not amount to the level of supervision and control of the work for liability under Labor Law 200. Plaintiff worked for a subcontractor and was injured while attempting to guide a heavy concrete object as it was lowered into a hole by a crane:

“The right to generally supervise the work, to stop the work if a safety violation is noted, or to ensure compliance with safety regulations does not amount to the supervision and control of the work necessary to impose liability on an owner or a general contractor pursuant to Labor Law § 200” … . Here, … defendants established … that the alleged incident arose from work performed over which they did not exercise supervision or control … . Kelly v RBSL Realty, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 07291, Second Dept 12-24-25

Practice Point: In the context of the requirements for Labor Law 200 and common law negligence liability for construction accidents, the owner’s and/or general contractor’s right to generally supervise the work and/or to stop the work for safety violations does not amount to “supervision and control” of the work.​

 

PLAINTIFF WAS STANDING ON THE SECOND RUNG FROM THE TOP, STRADDLING THE LADDER, WHEN IT WOBBLED AND FELL; THE NEED TO STAND NEAR THE TOP OF THE LADDER TO DO THE WORK DEMONSTRATES THE LADDER WAS NOT AN ADEQUATE SAFETY DEVICE ENTITLING PLAINTIFF TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION; THERE WAS A TWO JUSTICE DISSENT WHICH ARGUED THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S MISUSE OF THE LADDER WAS THE SOLE PROXIIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined plaintiff in this ladder-fall case was entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. Plaintiff was standing on the second rung from the top of an extendable step ladder, straddling the ladder, when the ladder fell away from the building. The majority concluded the fact that plaintiff had to stand on the second rung from the top and straddle the ladder to do the work, he was not provided with an adequate safety device. The dissent argued there was a question of fact whether plaintiff’s misuse of the ladder was the sole proximate cause of the accident:

Supreme Court erred in finding that plaintiff failed to meet his prima facie burden, as “[w]e have repeatedly held that when a worker injured in a fall was provided with an elevation-related safety device, [here the ladder,] the question of whether that device provided proper protection within the meaning of Labor Law § 240 (1) is ordinarily a question of fact, except in those instances where the unrefuted evidence establishes that the device collapsed, slipped or otherwise failed to perform its function of supporting the worker and his or her materials” … . Accordingly, … an unexplained fall of the ladder while plaintiff was using it to reach an elevated work area, he is entitled to the presumption that the ladder was not good enough to afford proper protection … . Nusbaum v 1455 Wash. Ave. LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 07066, Third Dept 12-18-25

Practice Point: Here the fact that plaintiff had to stand on the second rung from the top, straddling the ladder, to do the work demonstrated the ladder was not an adequate safety device, entitling plaintiff to summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action.

 

,

SUBCONTRACTOR DAL HAD ENTERED CONTRACTS FOR THIS RENOVATION PROJECT WITH THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR, JRM, AND THE PROPERTY OWNER, ROCKEFELLER; PLAINTIFF, WHO DID NOT WORK FOR DAL, WITHOUT DAL’S PERMISSION, KNOWING THE LADDER WAS DEFECTIVE, USED A DEFECTIVE LADDER OWNED BY DAL; THE LADDER WOBBLED AND PLAINTIFF FELL; THE COURT OF APPEALS HELD THE INDEMNIFICATION CLAUSES IN DAL’S CONTRACTS WITH JRM AND ROCKEFELLER DID NOT APPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S INJURIES (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, over a two-judge dissent, determined that DAL, a subcontractor, was not contractually required to indemnify the general contractor, JRM, and the property owner, Rockefeller, for plaintiff’s injuries from a ladder-fall. The plaintiff, Dibrino, a carpenter working for a nonparty subcontractor, Jacobsen, had already completed his measurements using his employer’s A-frame ladder and a scaffold, which he had moved to his next work-area, when he was asked to redo the measurements. Plaintiff, knowing it was defective, used an A-frame ladder owned by DAL when he remeasured. The ladder wobbled, plaintiff fell; a tool on his belt impaled his abdomen. The ruling that DAL was not obligated to indemnify the general contractor (JAM) and the owner (Rockefeller) for plaintiff’s injuries is based on the contractual language:

Mr. Dibrino’s unauthorized use of an unattended ladder (which he knew was not furnished by his employer and knew he was not supposed to use) instead of using the scaffold and ladder supplied by Jacobson that he had used earlier that day in that same spot, to perform work squarely outside the scope of the agreement between DAL and JRM, is not reasonably construed as arising from performance DAL’s work. JRM and Rockefeller’s reading would mean DAL’s contractual duty to indemnify would be triggered by any event that could be traced to DAL through any path—even, for example, had DAL disposed of the defective ladder in a dumpster and Mr. Dibrino retrieved it. Such an expansive reading of these indemnity provisions is implausibly broad, … an indemnification provision “must be strictly construed to avoid reading into it a duty which the parties did not intend to be assumed” … . Dibrino v Rockefeller Ctr. N., Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 07077, CtApp 12-18-25

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for insight into how indemnification clauses in contracts among a subcontractor, the general contractor and the owner should be interpreted under the Labor Law. Here the clauses did not apply to injuries suffered by a worker who (1) did not work for the subcontractor and (2) used the subcontractor’s ladder without the subcontractor’s permission, knowing that the ladder was defective.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF TRIPPED OVER A FLOOR TO CEILING WOODEN BRACE IN A HOME WHICH WAS UNDER CONSTRUCTION; THE THIRD DEPARTMENT HELD THAT THE OPEN AND OBVIOUS NATURE OF THE BRACE DID NOT WARRANT THE AWARD OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO THE DEFENDANTS ON THE LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the open and obvious nature of condition (a wooden brace over which plaintiff tripped) did not warrant summary judgment in defendants’ favor on the Labor Law 200 cause of action. The home was under construction and the brace ran at a 45 degree angle from the floor to the ceiling in the middle of the kitchen:

… [D]efendants failed to meet their prima facie burden as questions of fact remain as to whether defendants maintained the worksite in a reasonably safe condition, precluding summary judgment. … [D]efendants presented an affidavit of David Rubin, a former CEO of a general contracting firm with 45 years of experience in the field of general construction. Rubin reviewed, among other things, photographs of the worksite and observed there were two-by-four wooden braces set up throughout the home that were “necessary and fundamental to the construction process.” He explained that the brace plaintiff tripped over was “conspicuous and not hidden from sight, and indeed, plaintiff had already seen that particular brace prior to his incident.” Ultimately, he opined that neither the use nor the placement of the brace was negligent as it was necessary to support the structure at that stage of construction.

Although Rubin placed great emphasis on the fact that the brace was open and obvious and that plaintiff saw it prior to his fall, this Court has repeatedly held that “the open and obvious nature of an allegedly dangerous condition does not, standing alone, necessarily obviate a [general contractor’s] duty to maintain [the worksite] in a reasonably safe condition” … . Rather, the readily observable nature of the wooden brace “merely negated any duty that defendant[s] owed plaintiff to warn of [the] potentially dangerous condition[ ]” … . Nor does plaintiff’s testimony at his deposition that he saw the wooden brace prior to his fall defeat his claim as his “previous knowledge of a defective condition, if any, may be considered by a jury in assessing comparative negligence” … . Accordingly, “[v]iewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff as the nonmoving party, a question of fact remains as to whether defendants’ [worksite was] maintained in a reasonably safe condition. That question is for the trier of fact to resolve” … . Sullivan v Flynn, 2025 NY Slip Op 06773, Third Dept 12-4-25

Practice Point: Here the Third Department noted that a condition which is open and obvious and of which the plaintiff was aware before he was injured is not a sufficient ground for the award of summary judgment on a Labor Law 200 cause of action. Here a wooden floor to ceiling brace in the middle of the kitchen in a house under construction, over which plaintiff tripped, was deemed to raise a question of fact.

 

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.

 

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