You are here: / Labor Law-Construction Law
, ,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A CONTRACTOR WAS LIABLE TO A SUBCONTRACTOR FOR LAUNCHING AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM; THE SUBCONTRACTOR WAS INJURED ATTEMPTING TO FIX THE PROBLEM ALLEGEDLY CREATED BY THE CONTRACTOR (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether a contractor, Home Crafts, launched an instrument of harm such that the contractor was liable to a subcontractor, Catalano, who fell from a ladder when attempting to fix the problem. Home Craft had ordered that sheet metal be placed over a chimney during the installation of gas fireplace inserts. The sheet metal caused smoke to back up when the fireplace was tested. Catalano fell when taking the sheet metal off the chimney:

… “[A] contractor may be said to have assumed a duty of care and, thus, be potentially liable in tort, to third persons when the contracting party, in failing to exercise reasonable care in the performance of its duties, launches a force or instrument of harm” … .

Here, Home Crafts failed to establish, prima facie, that it did not launch a force or instrument of harm by directing Catalano to seal the chimney, without alerting the other contractors that the fireplace at issue was rendered inoperable due to the inability to ventilate smoke … . Santibanez v North Shore Land Alliance, Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 04921, Second Dept 9-1-21

 

A SUBCONTRACTOR CAN BE LIABLE FOR A DANGEROUS CONDITION ON THE WORK SITE ONLY IF IT EXERCISED SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER THE WORK SITE; THE LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE SUBCONTRACTOR SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant subcontractor’s (D’Onofrio’s) motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law 200 cause of action should have been granted. D’Onofrio demonstrated it did not have supervisory control over the work site where plaintiff allegedly fell from defective stairs:

Labor Law § 200 is a codification of the common-law duty of owners, contractors, and their agents to provide workers with a safe place to work … . “Where, as here, the plaintiff contends that his or her injuries arose not from the manner in which the work was performed, but rather from an allegedly dangerous condition at the work site, liability under Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence may be imposed upon a subcontractor where it had control over the work site and either created the allegedly dangerous condition or had actual or constructive notice of it” … .

… D’Onofrio established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the causes of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence insofar as asserted against it by establishing that it did not have authority to supervise or control the area of the work site where the accident occurred, and that it did not create a dangerous condition which caused the accident … . Uhl v D’Onofrio Gen. Contrs., Corp., 2021 NY Slip Op 04778, Second Dept 8-25-21

 

, ,

THE RELEASE WAS VALID EVEN THOUGH PLAINTIFF DID NOT UNDERSTAND ENGLISH; CPLR 2101, WHICH REQUIRES DOCUMENTS IN A FOREIGN LANGUAGE WHICH ARE FILED OR SERVED BE ACCOMPANIED BY AN ENGLISH TRANSLATION, DOES NOT APPLY BECAUSE THE RELEASE WAS IN ENGLISH (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the release executed by plaintiff with respect to defendant M & I was valid, despite the fact that plaintiff did not understand English:

A person who does not understand the English language is not automatically excused from complying with the terms of a signed agreement, since such person must make a reasonable effort to have the agreement made clear to him or her … . Here, the deposition testimony of the injured plaintiff … demonstrates that the terms of the release were explained to the injured plaintiff before he executed the document … . Furthermore, contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the Supreme Court erred in determining that CPLR 2101(b) precluded consideration of the release. That statute provides that papers to be “served or filed shall be in the English language” and “[w]here an affidavit or exhibit annexed to a paper served or filed is in a foreign language, it shall be accompanied by an English translation and an affidavit by the translator stating his qualifications and that the translation is accurate” (CPLR 2101[b]). Here, the release was written in English. Ivasyuk v Raglan, 2021 NY Slip Op 04706, Second Dept 8-18-21

 

THE INSTALLATION OF LARGE INDVIDUAL LETTERS FOR A SIGN ON THE FRONT SOFFIT OF A BUILDING CONSTITUTED “ALTERING” THE BUILDING TO WHICH LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) APPLY; BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL NOTICE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION OF THE SOFFIT (WHICH COLLAPSED), THE LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined Labor Law 240 (1), 241 (6) and 200 causes of action should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff was hired to install a sign made up of large individual letters on the front soffit of a business. Plaintiff used a ladder to climb inside the soffit through an access door to attach washers and nuts to bolts holding the letter which were passed through drilled holes by a co-worker. The floor of the soffit gave way and plaintiff fell 15 feet to the concrete below. Installing the sign constituted “altering” the building such that Labor Law 240 (1) and  241(6) applied. Also the Labor Law 200 cause of action should have survived because defendant did not demonstrate it lacked actual notice of the condition of the soffit:

… “[A]ltering,” within the meaning of Labor Law § 240(1) [and 241 (6)] , involves “making a significant physical change to the configuration or composition of the building or structure” … . Here, the evidence … failed to establish … that the injured plaintiff was not engaged in “altering” the building at the time of the accident … . …

… “[W]here a plaintiff’s injuries stem … from a dangerous condition on the premises, a landowner may be liable under Labor Law § 200 if it ‘either created the dangerous condition that caused the accident or had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition'” … . …

… [Defendant] failed to establish … that it lacked actual notice of the allegedly defective condition in the soffit … . Alberici v Gold Medal Gymnastics, 2021 NY Slip Op 04651, Second Dept 8-11-21

 

ALTHOUGH THE HOMEOWNER HIRED CONTRACTORS TO REPAIR HER HOME AND VISITED THE PROPERTY AS THE WORK WAS BEING DONE SHE DID NOT DIRECT OR SUPERVISE THE WORK AND THEREFORE WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE LABOR LAW 240(1), 241(6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant homeowner’s (Hanson’s) motion for summary judgment in this Labor Law 240(1), 241(6) and 200 action was properly granted, in part because the homeowner’s exemption from Labor Law liability applied. The facts that the homeowner hired several contractors to repair her home and visited the property while work was being done did not subject her to liability:

Hannon established … that she was the owner of a single-family home and that she did not direct or control the work performed by the plaintiff or his employer… . While Hannon testified at her deposition that she visited the property several times per week to “[p]ick up the mail, check on progress, say hello,” her deposition testimony, along with that of the plaintiff, established that she never directed the work … . …[T]he fact that Hannon hired separate contractors to perform different aspects of the work on her property does not render her “a general contractor, responsible for supervising the entire construction project and enforcing safety standards” … .

… Supreme Court properly granted that branch of Hannon’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence causes of action insofar as asserted against her. Hannon established, prima facie, that she did not have the authority to supervise or control the method or manner in which the plaintiff’s work was performed … . Navarra v Hannon, 2021 NY Slip Op 04611, Second Dept 8-4-21

 

PLAINTIFF’S FALL FROM A LADDER OCCURRED DURING ROUTINE MAINTENANCE AND THEREFORE WAS NOT ACTIONABLE PURSUANT TO LABOR LAW 240 (1) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action was properly dismissed because plaintiff was engaged in routine maintenance at the time of his fall from a ladder:

“Generally, courts have held that work constitutes routine maintenance where the work involves ‘replacing components that require replacement in the course of normal wear and tear'”  … .

… [T]he defendants established … that the replacement of the condenser fan motor, which, according to the deposition testimony of the injured plaintiff’s employer, weighed approximately 1½ pounds and was the kind of part that required replacement “all the time,” constituted routine maintenance and not repairing, or any of the other enumerated activities under Labor Law § 240(1) … . “The work here involved replacing [a] component[ ] that require[s] replacement in the course of normal wear and tear” … . Stockton v H&E Biffer Enters. No. 2, LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 04568, Second Dept 7-28-21

 

BECAUSE PLAINTIFF WAS FOLLOWING THE DIRECTIONS OF HIS FOREMAN WHEN INJURED BY AN IMPROPERLY HOISTED LOAD, HE COULD NOT BE THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS INJURIES (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff in this Labor Law 240 (1) and 241 (6) action could not be the sole proximate cause of his injuries because he was following the directions of his foreman when struck by an improperly hoisted load:

Plaintiff Samuel Hayek demonstrated prima facie entitlement to summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim, where the undisputed evidence showed that he was injured when struck by an improperly hoisted or inadequately secured load of L-shaped steel rebar weighing between 2000 and 3000 pounds, while doing construction work at defendant Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s Eastside Access project … .

In opposition, defendants failed to raise a triable issue as to the statutory violation and whether plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his injury. Given the undisputed evidence that plaintiff was following the directions of his foreman at the time of his injury, plaintiff cannot be the sole proximate cause of his injuries … . Hayek v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 2021 NY Slip Op 04103, First Dept 6-29-21

 

PLAINTIFF WAS PROPERLY AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION STEMMING FROM A FALL FROM A SIDEWALK BRIDGE PLAINTIFF WAS DISMANTLING; ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF WAS SUPPLIED WITH A HARNESS, THERE WAS NO PLACE TO ATTACH THE SAFETY LINE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined plaintiff was properly awarded summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action based on his fall from a sidewalk bridge he was dismantling. Although plaintiff had a harness, there was no place to attach the safety line:

Plaintiff testified that he was wearing a harness but that the sidewalk bridge did not have a lifeline to which he could attach the safety line, which was seven to nine feet long. The task at hand involved his breaking down the structure’s components and carrying them to the end of the sidewalk bridge run, which covered nearly a city block. The expert stated that if plaintiff’s movement was limited to nine feet with his lanyard attached to the sidewalk bridge, he could still have performed his job “as described.” However, he failed to explain further or indicate where on the bridge a tie-off would have been either practicable or safe, given the maximum range of the harness line. Gomez v Trinity Ctr. LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 03810, First Dept 6-15-21

 

PLAINTIFF WAS STANDING AT THE TOP OF A LADDER WHEN IT WOBBLED AND HE FELL; COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE IS NOT A DEFENSE TO A LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action, Plaintiff was standing at the top of a ladder when it wobbled and he fell:

Plaintiff established prima facie entitlement to summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240(1) claim through his testimony that while installing a cover on a sprinkler in a ceiling, he fell to the ground and sustained injury when the unsecured ladder on which he was standing with one foot on the ladder’s top, and the other foot one rung below began to wobble and he lost his equilibrium … . …

… [T]here is no requirement that plaintiff identify exactly what caused the ladder to move, or his fall … . While defendants argue that different versions as to why the ladder wobbled preclude summary judgment, under any of the scenarios, plaintiff is entitled to partial summary judgment because he was not supplied with adequate protection under the statute, which was the proximate cause of the accident … .

Given plaintiff’s undisputed testimony, any alleged misuse by him constitutes at most comparative negligence, which is not a defense to a Labor Law § 240(1) claim … . Hoxhaj v West 30th HL LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 03811, First Dept 6-15-21

 

,

COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE IS A DEFENSE TO A LABOR LAW 241 (6) CAUSE OF ACTION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department noted that comparative negligence is a defense to a Labor Law 241 (6) cause of action. Here plaintiff alleged he slipped and fell on ice and snow in a parking lot which functioned as a passageway and Supreme Court granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. The Fourth Department found defendant had raised a question of fact about whether it had discharged its duty to keep the passageway clear by salting it and sent the matter back for a trial:

… [G]iven the need for a trial on liability and, if necessary, a new trial on damages, we note our agreement with defendant that the court erred in granting plaintiff’s request to preclude defendant from introducing at the prior damages trial any evidence of plaintiff’s comparative fault with respect to the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action. The court determined that defendant was precluded from offering evidence of plaintiff’s comparative fault at trial because that issue had been decided when the court granted plaintiff’s motion. Contrary to the court’s determination, however, consideration of comparative fault is still required even “[w]hen a defendant’s liability is established as a matter of law before trial” because the jury must still “determine whether the plaintiff was negligent and whether such negligence was a substantial factor” in causing his or her injuries … , “comparative negligence remains a cognizable affirmative defense to a section 241 (6) cause of action” … . Baum v Javen Constr. Co., Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 03678, Fourth Dept 6-11-21

 

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