You are here: / Labor Law-Construction Law
,

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

 

PLAINTIFF ALLEGED HE WAS STRUCK BY A BRICK WHICH RICOCHETED OUT OF A CHUTE USED FOR DUMPING DEBRIS FROM THE UPPER FLOORS OF A BUILDING UNDERGOING DEMOLITION; THE CONTRACTOR’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendant general contractor’s motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) causes of action should not have been granted. During the demolition of a building plaintiff (allegedly) was struck by a brick which ricocheted out of a chute used for dumping debris from the upper floors:

The debris that was being removed from the building was thrown down the elevator chute, and the plaintiff’s injuries were caused by materials which descended from a higher floor and ricocheted out of the chute into the area where the plaintiff was working. The protections of Labor Law § 240(1) are implicated because the plaintiff’s injuries were caused either by the inadequacy of the chute in protecting him from the elevation-related risk resulting from the disposal of the debris down that chute, or the failure to employ other safety devices for the removal of the debris, which might have provided the necessary protection … . …

In support of that branch of its motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 241(6) cause of action, [the contractor] failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(a)(1), 23-1.20(a), 23-2.5(a), and 23-3.3(e) did not apply to the facts of this case, or that the alleged violations of these provisions were not a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s alleged injuries … . Rivas-Pichardo v 292 Fifth Ave. Holdings, LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 05600, Second Dept 10-13-21

 

PLAINTIFF’S LADDER SHIFTED AS HE USED IT TO THROW TRASH INTO A DUMPSTER; THE ALLEGATION HE WAS TOLD NOT TO USE THAT DUMPSTER DID NOT RAISE A SOLE-PROXIMATE-CAUSE OR RECALCITRANT-EMPLOYEE DEFENSE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240(1) cause of action in this ladder-fall case. Plaintiff was using a closed A-frame ladder propped up against a dumpster as threw debris into it when the ladder shifted and he fell. The defendants’ argument that plaintiff was told not to use that dumpster did not raise a sole-proximate-cause or a recalcitrant-employee defense:

“[I]f a statutory violation is a proximate cause of an injury, the plaintiff cannot be solely to blame for it” … . 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 … .

To the extent that defendants argue that plaintiff was recalcitrant in ignoring defendants’ alleged instructions not to use the dumpster, this is insufficient to raise an issue of fact. The recalcitrant worker defense “requires a showing that the injured worker refused to use the safety devises that were provided by the owner or employer. It has no application where, as here, no adequate safety devices were provided” … . An employer’s instructions “to avoid an unsafe practice is not a sufficient substitute for providing a worker with a safety device to allow him to complete his work safely” … . Plaku v 1622 Van Buren LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 05311, First Dept 10-5-21​

 

,

SUPREME COURT PROPERLY ALLOWED THE AMENDMENT OF THE BILL OF PARTICULARS AFTER THE NOTE OF ISSUE HAD BEEN FILED; THE AMENDMENT ALLEGED ADDITIONAL VIOLATIONS OF THE INDUSTRIAL CODE IN THIS LABOR LAW 241(6) ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly allowed the amendment of the bill of particulars after the note of issue had been filed in this Labor Law 241(6) action. The amendment alleged additional violations of the Industrial Code:

“[L]eave to amend the pleadings to identify a specific, applicable Industrial Code provision may properly be granted, even after the note of issue has been filed, where the plaintiff makes a showing of merit, and the amendment involves no new factual allegations, raises no new theories of liability, and causes no prejudice to the defendant”… . Here, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the plaintiff’s cross motion which was to amend the bill of particulars to allege violations of additional Industrial Code sections. The plaintiff’s amendment did not prejudice the defendants and did not involve new factual allegations or raise new theories of liability … . Palaguachi v Idlewild 228th St., LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 05127, Second Dept 9-29-21

 

THE SCAFFOLD ON WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS STANDING FELL OVER WHEN HE ATTEMPTED TO MOVE IT WHILE STANDING ON IT; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment in this Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) action. The scaffold fell over when plaintiff attempted to move it while standing on it. There was evidence one of the wheels, which was attached with wire, became detached:

… [T]he plaintiff demonstrated that he was directed to work on a Baker scaffold in order to perform his task of installing tracks on the ceiling, that the scaffold he was using was the only scaffold available to him, that as he was working without assistance, he tried to move the scaffold while he was standing on it, and that after the scaffold toppled over he observed that one of its wheels was detached. The plaintiff also submitted the affidavit of his foreman … who averred … that there were no nuts and bolts securing the wheels to the scaffold, and that the wheels were kept in place with the use of wire. Shortly after the accident, [the foreman] also observed that one of the wheels of the scaffold had become detached from its frame.

… [The] defendants failed to present a plausible view of the evidence—enough to raise a fact question—that there was no statutory violation and that the plaintiff’s own acts or omissions were the sole cause of the accident … . Masmalaj v New York City Economic Dev. Corp., 2021 NY Slip Op 05119, Second Dept 9-29-21

 

THE FACT THAT THE LADDER SLID OR SHIFTED AND FELL WARRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION; PLAINTIFF DID NOT NEED TO DEMONSTRATE THE LADDER WAS DEFECTIVE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action in this ladder-fall case. Plaintiff alleged the ladder slid or shifted and then fell. In that circumstance plaintiff does not have to demonstrate the ladder was defective and any comparative negligence on plaintiff’s part should not be considered:

Defendants argue that the statutory requirement was not met because plaintiff testified that there was no defect in the extension ladder and that it felt secure. Although defendants have produced evidence that the ladder may not have been defective, the adequacy of the ladder is not a question of fact when it “slips or otherwise fails to perform its function of supporting the worker” … . …

Although defendants cite to numerous actions on the part of plaintiff in support of this contention, including that plaintiff did not (1) use an alternative safety device or scaffold to install the guidewires, (2) have supervision or ask for assistance when using the ladder or (3) clear the snow upon which the feet of the ladder were placed, these arguments merely raise a question as to plaintiff’s comparative negligence, which will not relieve defendants from liability … . Begeal v Jackson, 2021 NY Slip Op 05000, Third Dept 9-16-21

 

, ,

THE LABOR-LAW CONSTRUCTION-ACCIDENT ACTION WAS PRECLUDED BY THE RESULT OF THE PRIOR WORKERS’ COMPENSATION HEARING UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL; THE MOTION TO AMEND THE ANSWER TO ADD THE COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DEFENSE WAS PROPERLY GRANTED, EVEN THOUGH THE MOTION WAS MADE AFTER THE NOTE OF ISSUE WAS FILED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dillon, determined the Labor Law 240(1), 241(6) and 200 action was precluded by the doctrine of collateral estoppel based upon the result of a Workers’ Compensation hearing. Plaintiff alleged a hoist at a construction site malfunctioned causing knee injuries. Plaintiff was represented by an attorney at the Workers’ Compensation hearing and witnesses were cross-examined. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded that the incident (hoist malfunction) never occurred. In addition, the Second Department held that the motion to amend the answer to add the collateral estoppel defense, made after the note of issue was filed, was properly granted. Plaintiff could not have been surprised by the defense and suffered no prejudice from the late amendment:

Determinations rendered by quasi-judicial administrative agencies may qualify for collateral estoppel effect  so long as the requirements of the doctrine [identity of issues and a full and fair opportunity to contest the controlling decision] are satisfied. Determinations of the Workers’ Compensation Board are potentially within the scope of the doctrine … . * * *

… [T]he defendants met their burden of establishing, prima facie, their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the ground that the plaintiff’s action was barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel. The ALJ’s findings, as affirmed by the Workers’ Compensation Board, established as a matter of fact that the accident claimed by the plaintiff did not occur, or did not occur in the described manner as would cause injury. That finding is material and, in fact, pivotal, to the core viability of any personal injury action that the plaintiff could pursue in a court at law regarding the same incident … . Lennon v 56th & Park(NY) Owner, LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 04972, Second Dept 9-15-21

 

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