You are here: / Labor Law-Construction Law
,

PLAINTIFF’S ACTIONS WERE NOT THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS FALL FROM A MAKESHIFT PLATFORM ON A LULL (FORKLIFT) USED TO REACH ELEVATED AREAS; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE HOMEOWNER WHO LEASED THE LULL AND DIRECTED PLAINTIFF’S WORK SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for a directed verdict on his Labor law 241(6) cause of action should have been granted. Plaintiff fell from a makeshift platform he placed on a lull (forklift) to reach elevated areas of a house he was wrapping with an insulation material (Tyvek). The central question was whether plaintiff’s own actions were the sole proximate cause of his fall and injuries:

… [I]t is beyond dispute that the lull was not an adequate safety device for the elevated work being performed by plaintiff at the time of his fall … . This conclusion is not changed by defendant’s provision of harnesses incompatible with the lull … . Plaintiff’s accident was plainly the direct result of the makeshift lull setup failing, and the parties are therefore in agreement that, unless plaintiff’s choice not to use other available safety devices when installing the Tyvek was the sole proximate cause of his own injuries, plaintiff has established his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim.

Plaintiff indeed brought extension ladders and scaffolding with him to the job site, and it appears that defendant provided some ladders as well. …[T]here is simply no trial evidence to suggest that plaintiff knew he was expected to use a ladder or scaffolding to wrap the front of the house with Tyvek. It is uncontroverted that use of the lull with a makeshift platform had become commonplace at the job site in the weeks preceding plaintiff’s accident, that the scaffolding was set up at the rear of the house specifically because the lull could not traverse the terrain there and that defendant’s only affirmative safety-related instructions to plaintiff regarding the subject elevated work were to either use a harness or construct a platform, both of which involved use of the lull. As proof of the foregoing element is lacking, there is no rational process by which a jury could conclude that plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his own injuries … . DeGraff v Colontonio, 2022 NY Slip Op 01074, Third Dept 2-17-22

 

THE TENANT WHICH SUPPLIED THE ALLEGEDLY DEFECTIVE LADDER TO THE PLAINTIFF IN THIS LADDER-FALL CASE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the tenant, Fresh Direct, which supplied the allegedly defective ladder to plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law 200 and common law negligence causes of action. Plaintiff fell 20 feet when the ladder slipped:

Fresh Direct failed to establish, prima facie, that it did not have actual or constructive notice of the allegedly defective condition of the ladder that, according to the plaintiff, it provided at the time of the accident … . Hamm v Review Assoc., LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 01011, Second Dept 2-16-22

 

NEITHER THE BUILDING OWNER NOR THE PROSPECTIVE BUILDING OWNER HAD SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER THE PREMISES OR THE WORK, INCLUDING THE WORK OF PLAINTIFF AND HIS CO-WORKER WHO APPARENTLY MOPPED THE FLOOR WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL; THE LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE OWNER AND PROSPECTIVE OWNER SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the Labor Law 200 and common law negligence causes of action against the building owner (Grand) and the prospective purchaser of the building (Empire) should have been dismissed. Plaintiff slipped and fell on a wet floor which apparently had just been mopped by a co-worker. Neither Grand nor Empire had general supervisory authority over the premises and did not supervise or control the work of plaintiff or the co-worker:

The building was owned by defendant Grand but was under a contract of sale to defendant Empire, with a closing date of February 1, 2017. Under the contract of sale, Empire was given access to the premises prior to closing to perform renovations and to stage and lease the apartments. Empire hired plaintiff’s employer Infinity to act as general contractor for the renovations. According to the record, Empire did not have any employees at the premises on the date of the accident and did not supervise Infinity’s work. Grand had no employees or agents at the premises full time, but an employee of a company related to Grand would occasionally visit the building to check that there were no problems and that everything was clean. The employee visited the building approximately four or five times, approximately twice in the four months prior to the accident, and once during construction. No one employed by Grand regularly supervised the construction ongoing at the premises. Arnold v Empire 326 Grand LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 00965, First Dept 2-15-22

 

DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED (1) THE PROTRUDING PIPE OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND NOT INHERENTLY DANGEROUS, (2) THEY DID NOT EXERCISE SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER PLAINTIFF’S WORK, AND (3) THE INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION PROHIBITING THE ACCUMULATION OF DEBRIS DID NOT APPLY; THE LABOR LAW 200 AND 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law 200 and 241(6) causes of action should have been granted. Plaintiff, while pouring a concrete floor, tripped over a drainage pipe which had been covered by a blanket to protect it from the concrete. The defendants demonstrated: (1) the pipe was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous; (2) they did not exercise supervisory control over plaintiff’s work; and (3), the Industrial Code provision which addresses accumulation of debris did not apply:

… [T]he defendants met their prima facie burden of demonstrating both that the allegedly dangerous condition was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous, and that they lacked the authority to supervise or control the plaintiff’s work. …

… [T]he defendants demonstrated that 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(e)(2) is inapplicable because the protruding drainage pipe over which the plaintiff allegedly fell was a permanent and an integral part of what was being constructed … . Sanchez v BBL Constr. Servs., LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 00890, Second Dept 2-9-22

 

THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL ON ICE AND SNOW IN A “PASSAGEWAY” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE INDUSTRIAL CODE; THEREFORE DEFENDANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendant’s summary judgment on the Labor Law 241(6) should not have been granted. Plaintiff alleged he slipped and fell on ice and snow on a passageway which had not been cleared of ice and snow:

Labor Law § 241(6) imposes on owners, general contractors, and their agents a nondelegable duty to provide “reasonable and adequate protection” to workers engaged in construction, demolition, and excavation activities by complying with Industrial Code regulations that specify concrete safety directives, regardless whether they exercised supervision or control over the work … . Industrial Code § 23-1.7(d) provides that employers shall not allow any employee to use a “floor, passageway, walkway, scaffold, platform, or other elevated work surface which is in a slippery condition,” and specifically enumerates ice and snow as foreign substances that must be removed, sanded, or covered. Plaintiff was allegedly injured at the construction site where he was working when he slipped and fell on snow and ice after he had passed through a perimeter gate, towards his employer’s shanty nearby upon arriving for work one morning. Defendant construction manager … testified the shanty area “was commonly used as a roadway for egress” and an “egress path” for workers going from the office trailers on one side of the shanties to the building under construction. Although it is unclear on this record whether there was a defined path where plaintiff fell, it is also unclear whether he was within the “shanty area” that was used as a “roadway for egress” and an “egress path.” Accordingly, issues of fact exist as to whether plaintiff was in a defined walkway within the meaning of Industrial Code § 23-1.7(d) … . Lapinsky v Extell Dev. Co., 2022 NY Slip Op 00815, First Dept 2-8-22

 

DEFENDANT WAS A PRIME, NOT A GENERAL, CONTRACTOR AND DEMONSTRATED HE DID NOT EXERCISE SUPERVISION OR CONTROL OVER PLAINTIFF’S WORK; THEREFORE DEFENDANT WAS NOT LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6); HOWEVER, DEFENDANT DID EXERCISE SOME CONTROL OVER WORK-SITE SAFETY AND THEREFORE MAY BE LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 200 (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendant prime contractor, Kilian, did not supervise or control plaintiff’s work and therefore was not liable on the Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) causes of action stemming from plaintiff’s fall down an open stairway at a house under construction. The Fourth Department noted the difference between a general contractor and a prime contractor. Here, Kilian (the prime contractor) demonstrated he did not exercise supervision or control over plaintiff’s work. However, Kilian did exercise some control over work-site safety and therefore may be liable under Labor Law 200 for the dangerous condition (open stairwell):

“A general contractor will be held liable under [Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6)] if it was responsible for coordinating and supervising the entire construction project and was invested with a concomitant power to enforce safety standards and to hire responsible contractors” … . Here, Collins, not Kilian, hired plaintiff’s employer to perform work on the project, and Kilian established through the documentary evidence and deposition testimony that he exercised no control or supervision over plaintiff’s work and had no authority to enforce safety standards against plaintiff … . Thus, Kilian established as a matter of law that he was not a general contractor subject to liability pursuant to Labor Law §§ 240 (1) or 241 (6), and plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact … . …

… [T]o the extent that the section 200 claim against Kilian is based on the theory that he was negligent with respect to the dangerous condition of the stairwell, we conclude that Kilian failed to establish as a matter of law that he did not have control over the work site or that he lacked actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition, i.e., the unguarded, open stairwell … . Clifton v Collins, 2022 NY Slip Op 00780, Fourth Dept 2-4-22

 

,

THE WRENCH WHICH FELL AND STRUCK PLAINTIFF COULD HAVE BEEN TETHERED TO THE WORKER WHO DROPPED IT; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION; PLAINTIFF NEED NOT SUBMIT AN EXPERT AFFIDAVIT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action should have been granted. A wrench slipped out of a co-worker’s hand and fell 10 or 15 feet striking plaintiff. Defendant’s expert opinion that the wrench could not be tethered to a wall missed the point that the wrench could be tethered to the worker. Plaintiff was not required to submit an expert opinion:

Plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240(1) claim based on [defendant] NYCHA’s failure to provide an adequate safety device to protect him from falling objects that were required to be secured … . Third-party defendant Vestar, Inc.’s expert opinion that the wrench “could not have been functionally employed if it was secured/tethered on the parapet wall” completely misses the point, since the wrench could have been tethered to the worker. … [T]he accident report … made the recommendation “to use tethering devices while working from heights,” to prevent reoccurrence of such an accident … . Contrary to NYCHA’s and Vestar’s contention, plaintiff was not required to proffer an expert affidavit … . Rincon v New York City Hous. Auth., 2022 NY Slip Op 00639, First Dept 2-1-22

 

PLAINTIFF WAS IN A TRENCH WHEN HE WAS STRUCK BY THE BUCKET OF AN EXCAVATOR WHICH WAS ON THE EDGE OF THE TRENCH ABOVE HIM IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6) AND 200 ACTION; THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE INJURY WAS THE RESULT OF THE USUAL AND ORDINARY DANGERS OF A CONSTRUCTION SITE AS OPPOSED TO A RISK CONTEMPLATED BY THE LABOR LAW (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law 240 (1) and 241 (6) causes of action should not have been granted. Plaintiff was in a trench when he was struck by the bucket of an excavator which was on the edge of the trench above him:

Plaintiffs’ own submissions created a triable issue of fact concerning the manner in which the accident occurred … , specifically whether plaintiff was injured due to a risk contemplated by the statute or, alternatively, by ” ‘the usual and ordinary dangers of a construction site’ ” … . …

… [T]he court erred in granting plaintiffs’ motion with respect to liability on the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action insofar as it is premised upon alleged violations of 12 NYCRR 23-9.4 (c) and 23-9.5 (a). The issue of fact concerning the manner in which the accident occurred precludes a determination as a matter of law whether either of those regulations were violated … . Malvestuto v Town of Lancaster, 2022 NY Slip Op 00577, Fourth Dept 1-28-22

 

PLAINTIFF FELL THROUGH A SKYLIGHT HOLE WHEN ATTEMPTING TO REMOVE PLYWOOD WHICH WAS COVERING THE HOLE; PLAINTIFF WAS PROPERLY AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action was properly granted. Plaintiff fell through a skylight hole while attempting to remove plywood which was covering the hole:

Plaintiff submitted his own deposition testimony, in which he testified that, at the time of his injury, he was removing the plywood covering of the skylight hole as part of his work of preparing to install the final roofing. Plaintiff further testified that, upon removing the plywood, he fell through the skylight hole, and he was given no safety device to protect him from falling. Even assuming, arguendo, that the plywood cover constituted a safety device … , we note that “the availability of a particular safety device will not shield an owner or general contractor from absolute liability if the device alone is not sufficient to provide safety without the use of additional precautionary devices or measures” … . While the plywood cover “may have provided proper protection when it was in place over the opening, . . . once it was removed plaintiff was exposed to an elevation-related risk which required additional precautionary measures or devices” … . Tanksley v LCO Bldg. LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 00567, Fourth Dept 1-28-22

 

IN THIS SCAFFOLD-FALL CASE, EVIDENCE PLAINTIFF WAS INSTRUCTED TO USE GUARD RAILS ON THE SCAFFOLD BUT DID NOT REQUIRED DENIAL OF PLAINTFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined Supreme Court properly denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this scaffold-fall case. Defendants raised a question of fact with evidence plaintiff was instructed to use guard rails on the scaffold but did not:

… [T]hrough the testimony that plaintiff declined to use guardrails even though he was instructed to do so and even though guardrails were available, [defendants] raised an issue of fact as to whether plaintiff was the sole proximate of his accident, thus rendering summary judgment in his favor inappropriate … . Although the field supervisor did not witness the accident, he attested that he arrived on the scene as plaintiff was getting into the ambulance and proceeded straightaway to the worksite, where he found the Baker scaffold that plaintiff had been using to be in good condition, but the guardrails that plaintiff had been instructed to use leaning up against a nearby wall. Vargas v 1166 LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 00528, 1-27-22

 

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