You are here: / Labor Law-Construction Law
,

PLAINTIFF IN A LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6) ACTION NEED NOT SUBMIT AN AFFIDAVIT TO MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE; THE HEARSAY STATEMENTS REFERENCING OR ATTRIBUTED TO PLAINTIFF DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court and granting plaintiffs’ summary judgment motion on the Labor Law 240 (1) and 241 (6) causes of action, determined: (1) plaintiff need not submit an affidavit to make out a prima facie case; and (2) defendant’s reliance on hearsay, including statements referenced in the certified medical records, did not raise a question of fact:

Plaintiffs established prima facie that defendant Choice is liable to them under Labor Law § 240(1) and Labor Law § 241(6) predicated on Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-1.7(b)(1)(i) through plaintiff Bledar Greca’s (plaintiff) testimony that he was injured while working on the fifth floor of defendant Choice’s property when a piece of wood that had been placed as a temporary path shifted, causing him to fall through an open area between beams. …

Although plaintiff’s medical records were certified, Choice [defendant] did not establish that the statements contained in them on which it relied either were germane to plaintiff’s diagnosis and treatment or are directly attributable to plaintiff … . The handwritten statement ostensibly by defendant Cekaj Construction Corp.’s principal and the affidavit by the owner of second third-party defendant Donato Plumbing Group, Inc. as to what Cekaj’s principal told him about plaintiff’s accident are both inadmissible hearsay, and do not qualify as admissions by an opposing party … . Greca v Choice Assoc. LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 06759, First Dept 12-2-21

 

THE BUILT-IN WATER HEATER WAS A “STRUCTURE” AND PLAINTIFF WAS ENGAGED IN “REPAIR” WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240(1); A SHELF ROUTINELY USED AS A PLATFORM TO ACCESS THE BUILT-IN WATER HEATER COULD CONSTITUTE A DANGEROUS CONDITION WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 200 (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined (1) the built-in water heater plaintiff was attempting to shut off was a “structure” within the meaning of Labor Law 240(1); (2) plaintiff (Eherts) was engaged in repair, a covered activity, not routine maintenance; and (3) the Labor Law 200 cause of action should not have been dismissed. The plaintiff determined it was important to turn off the water heater to prevent damage because of a suspected water main break. To access the built-in water heater it was necessary to step on suspended shelves. The shelf plaintiff stepped on gave way and he fell:

The situation here is not one of a stand-alone hot water heater accessible at floor level. To the contrary, the record shows that the hot water heater is situated above one of the store’s refrigerated units. The heater does not directly rest on top of the freezer, but on a platform suspended a few inches above the freezer by cables attached to the ceiling. The heater has a gas turnoff adjacent to it and an electric breaker switch on the actual heater. There is a shelf that runs along the top of the freezer unit that protrudes out about three feet from the freezer, approximately 12 feet above the floor surface. To access the heater, it was necessary to place a ladder against the shelf, and step over the shelf to reach the heater platform. In our view, this configuration constitutes a structure within the embrace of Labor Law § 240 (1)  … . …

The events here did not occur during a routine scheduled maintenance call. Instead, on New Year’s Day, Eherts was responding to an isolated and unexpected event, i.e., to address a low/no water pressure issue at the store caused by a municipal water main break. His direct response was to take preventative measures to, among other things, avoid damage to the hot water heater by shutting the system off. Eherts v Shoprite Supermarkets, Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 06587, Third Dept 11-24-21

 

THE FACT THAT OSHA REQUIRES PROTECTION ONLY FOR FALLS MORE THAN SIX FEET WAS IRRELEVANT; PLAINTIFF, WHO FELL FROM AN ELEVATED PLANK, WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined plaintiff’s fall from a plank, even if the fall was less than six feet, entitled him to summary judgment on the Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action:

Even if, as [defendant] contends, plaintiff fell less than six feet, that does not render the statute inapplicable … , [Defendant’s] claimed compliance with OSHA regulations requiring fall protection only for falls of six feet or more is irrelevant … . The wooden plank from which plaintiff fell did not constitute a “passageway,” but “served, conceptually and functionally, as an elevated platform or scaffold” … . DaSilva v Toll First Ave., LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 06438 First Dept 11-18-21

 

PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY SLIPPED AND FELL AFTER STEPPING ON A BOTTLE CAP; PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 241 (6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the Labor Law 241(6) and 200 causes of action should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff alleged he stepped on a bottle cap which caused him to slip and fall:

The record presents an issue of fact as to whether the bottle cap that caused the injured plaintiff’s slip-and-fall accident on the construction site was part of an accumulation of debris within the meaning of Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-1.7(e), on which the Labor Law § 241(6) claim is predicated … .

[Defendant] failed to demonstrate, by submitting evidence of when the area was last cleaned or inspected before the injured plaintiff’s accident, that the Labor Law § 200 and negligence claims should be dismissed as against it … . Plaza presented only general testimony by its employees that the area was inspected daily and that debris was removed by laborers. Deleo v JPMorgan Chase & Co., 2021 NY Slip Op 06320, First Dept 11-16-21

 

PLAINTIFF INJURED HIS BACK LIFTING A HEAVY METAL STRUCTURE A FEW INCHES TO ALLOW ROOFING MATERIAL TO BE PUT DOWN UNDERNEATH IT; THE INJURY WAS NOT THE RESULT OF AN ELEVATION-RELATED HAZARD COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1) (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action should have been granted. Plaintiff injured his back lifting a metal structure a few inches so roofing material could be applied underneath it. The injury was not related to the failure to provide a safety device to prevent an elevation-related injury:

… “[L]iability may . . . be imposed under [Labor Law § 240 (1)] only where the ‘plaintiff’s injuries were the direct consequence of a failure to provide adequate protection against a risk arising from a physically significant elevation differential’ ” … . The statute “was designed to prevent those types of accidents in which the scaffold, hoist, stay, ladder or other protective device proved inadequate to shield the injured worker from harm directly flowing from the application of the force of gravity to an object or person” … . … [T]he protections of Labor Law § 240 (1) ” ‘do not encompass any and all perils that may be connected in some tangential way with the effects of gravity’ ” … .

… Although plaintiff’s back injury was “tangentially related to the effects of gravity upon the [structure] he was lifting, it was not caused by the limited type of elevation-related hazards encompassed by Labor Law § 240 (1)” … . … [P]laintiff’s injuries “resulted from a ‘routine workplace risk[]’ of a construction site and not a ‘pronounced risk[] arising from construction work site elevation differentials’ ” … . Branch v 1908 W. Ridge Rd, LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 06248, Fourth Dept 11-12-21

 

, , ,

A NOTICE OF CLAIM IS NOT A PLEADING AND THEREFORE NEED NOT BE ANNEXED TO A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION; ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6) ACTION ESTABLISHED HE FELL FROM A SCAFFOLD, HE DID NOT ESTABLISH THE FALL WAS DUE TO INADEQUATE SAFETY EQUIPMENT; HIS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS PROPERLY DENIED ON THAT GROUND (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this Labor Law 240 (1) and 2411 (6) scaffold-fall case was properly denied on evidentiary grounds, but it was not properly denied because the notice of claim was not included with the motion papers. Although the pleadings must be annexed to a summary judgment motion, a notice of claim is not a pleading. The motion was properly denied on evidentiary grounds because it was not demonstrated the fall was the result of a failure to provide adequate safety equipment:

While the defendant correctly contends that CPLR 3212(b) requires that motions for summary judgment be supported by a copy of the pleadings, a notice of claim is not a pleading … . …

… [T]he plaintiff relies solely on his General Municipal Law § 50-h hearing testimony and his deposition testimony, which merely established that he fell from a scaffold. The plaintiff failed to address whether there were scaffold rails, possible tie off points for a harness, or some alternative fall protection. Without more, the plaintiff’s testimony that he “moved [his] foot” to the left, causing him to step off of the scaffold and into an “empty space,” and that “there was nothing there because [he] stepped on it and . . . thought it was something solid” are insufficient … . Torres v New York City Hous. Auth., 2021 NY Slip Op 06207, Second Dept 11-10-21

 

,

DEFENDANT WAS NOT SHOWN TO BE NEGLIGENT OR TO HAVE EXERCISED SUPERVISION AND CONTROL OVER THE INJURY-PRODUCING WORK; SCHEDULING AND COORDINATING WORK DOES NOT CONSTITUTE SUPERVISON AND CONTROL; THE COMMON-LAW INDEMNIFICATION AND CONTRIBUTION CLAIMS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the common-law indemnification action against defendant Ergonomic should have been granted because Ergonomic was not shown to be negligent or to have exercised supervisory control over the injury-producing work. Portions of the floor were removed to access cables. Plaintiff alleged a leg of his ladder went into an area where the floor had been removed, causing him to fall. The First Department noted that coordinating and scheduling work does not rise to the level of supervision and control:

Ergonomic’s motion for summary judgment dismissing Owner Defendants’ third-party claims for common-law indemnification and contribution should have been granted. There was no evidence that Ergonomic was negligent or that it exercised actual supervision or control over the injury-producing work. Ergonomic did not perform any of the physical work and was not onsite at the time of the accident. To the extent it might have had authority to supervise the injury producing work, it never exercised such authority, but rather, had subcontracted such contractual duties to Quick, which actually directed and supervised the work … . The fact that Ergonomic scheduled and coordinated Quick’s and Atlas’s work is insufficient to give rise to liability, as the coordinating and scheduling of trades at work sites do not rise to the level of supervision and control necessary to impose liability under a negligence theory … . Balcazar v Commet 380, Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 06030, First Dept 11-4-21

 

PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6) CAUSES OF ACTION STEMMING FROM TWO INCIDENTS: A FORM FELL OFF A WALL ONTO PLAINTIFF; PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED BY A DEFECTIVE GRINDER (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motions for summary judgment on Labor Law 240 (1) and 241 (6) causes of causes of action should have been granted. Two separate incidents were alleged: (1) a concrete form fell three to five feet off a wall onto plaintiff; and (2) plaintiff was injured after he was directed to use a defective grinder:

… [Plaintiff] had been instructed to clean up debris directly underneath a form used for concrete, and that the form came off the wall and fell on top of him from a height of three to five feet … . Plaintiff’s inability to explain precisely what caused the form to fall on him does not preclude Labor Law § 240(1) liability … . Plaintiff demonstrated that he was injured when the steel and plywood form fell on him because an elevation-related safety device failed, or no device was placed and operated so as to provide him with adequate protection … .

… [P]laintiff was not required to supply an expert affidavit … . …

Plaintiff was directed to use a visibly defective grinder that had no blade, safety guard or side handle. There was also no cut-off switch. While he was using the grinder, it spontaneously cut off and then turned back on, without plaintiff engaging the power switch. When plaintiff complained, he was instructed to proceed with the defective grinder or go home. Viruet v Purvis Holdings LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 05840, First Dept 10-26-21

 

PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A BOARD FROM A DISMANTLED FENCE WHICH FELL OFF A FORKLIFT; DISMANTLING THE FENCE WAS A COVERED ACTIVITY AND THE ACCIDENT WAS THE RESULT OF A COVERED ELEVATION-RELATED HAZARD; SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff was properly awarded summary judgment on his Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. Plaintiff was struck by a board which fell off a forklift. The boards were part of a fence which was being dismantled. Dismantling the fence constituted “demolition” and “altering” within the meaning of the statute. And the accident involved an elevation-related risk:

… [T]he disassembly and removal of the boards from the soccer field was a partial dismantling of a structure (see 12 NYCRR 23-1.4[16]), and constituted “demolition” within the meaning of Labor Law § 240(1). Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the disassembly and removal of the boards was also a significant physical change to the configuration of the structure … , and constituted “altering” within the meaning of Labor Law § 240(1). The plaintiff’s role in hauling away the boards after they had been removed by the defendant was an act “ancillary” to the demolition and alteration of the field structure, and protected under Labor Law § 240(1) … . * * *

… [T]he plaintiff established that the forklift was being used to lift heavy soccer boards. The boards were stacked on top of the forks of the forklift, and lifted into the air so they could be transferred and stacked in the back of the box truck. The plaintiff testified at his deposition that a portion of the forklift had been removed so that it could fit through a certain doorway on the premises. At the time of the accident, the plaintiff and his coworkers were attempting to slide one of the boards from a stack on the raised forklift into the back of the truck. The stack was raised to a height of approximately 8 or 9 feet at the time of the accident. The plaintiff was struck in the head by a board, weighing approximately 200 pounds, when it slid sideways off the stack and over the cab of the forklift while the plaintiff stood at ground level. The plaintiff’s submissions … demonstrated that the forklift had been modified and lacked certain safety devices, including “load guides and/or guide rails,” which could have been used to “constrain the boards as they were moved from the elevated forks into the truck.” Hensel v Aviator FSC, Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 05697, Second Dept 10-20-21

 

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE TRIPPING HAZARD WAS INHERENT IN PLAINTIFF’S JOB; THEREFORE THE LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSD (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether the hazard which caused plaintiff to trip was inherent in his job. A sheet of plastic had been placed over a pipe:

Supreme Court should have denied those branches of the defendants’ motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence causes of action. “Owners and general contractors, and their agents, have a common-law duty to provide employees with a safe place to work,” and Labor Law § 200 “merely codified that duty” … . The duty does not extend “to hazards that are part of, or inherent in, the very work the employee is to perform or defects the employee is hired to repair” … . Here, the evidence submitted by the defendants did not eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether the placement of the plastic sheet on top of, as opposed to underneath, the installed pipe was a hazard that was part of, or inherent in, the work the injured plaintiff was hired to perform … . Fonck v City of New York, 2021 NY Slip Op 05693, Second Dept 10-20-21

 

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