You are here: / Labor Law-Construction Law
,

THE COMPLAINT IN THIS LABOR LAW 200 ACTION ALLEGED INJURY CAUSED BY A DANGEROUS CONDITION AT THE WORK SITE; THE DEFENDANTS IGNORED THAT THEORY IN THEIR MOTION FOR A SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND FOCUSED ON AN INAPPLICABLE THEORY (THE MEANS AND MANNER OF WORK); THE MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this Labor Law 200 action should not have been granted. There are two distinct theories which will support a Labor Law 200 cause of action. If the injury stems from the means and manner of the work, the defendant must have supervisory authority over the way the work is done. If the injury stems from a dangerous condition, the defendant must have control over the work site and must have created or had notice of the dangerous condition. Here plaintiff alleged a door at the work site was not adequately secured and he was injured when wind blew the door shut. The door therefore was alleged to constitute a dangerous condition. In their motion papers, however, the defendants addressed only the means-and-manner-of-work theory:

… [T]he plaintiff’s complaint and verified bill of particulars sounded almost entirely in premises liability, and alleged, inter alia, that the door was not properly constructed, placed, or secured, and that it lacked adequate securing devices. To establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the defendants were obligated to address the proof applicable to the plaintiff’s dangerous condition theory of liability, or alternatively, to demonstrate, prima facie, that this case fell only within the ambit of the means and methods category of Labor Law § 200 cases … . On their motion, the defendants summarily concluded that the case exclusively implied a means and methods theory of liability, and contended that they only had general supervisory authority over the work site, which would be insufficient to impose liability for common-law negligence and under Labor Law § 200 in a means and methods case … . The defendants, however, failed to address premises liability and whether they either created the alleged dangerous condition or had actual or constructive notice of it … . Rodriguez v HY 38 Owner, LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 01436, Second Dept 3-10-21

 

WHETHER PLAINTIFF USED ONE OR BOTH HANDS TO MANIPULATE A HOSE WHILE STANDING ON A LADDER WHICH COLLAPSED OR SLIPPED WAS RELEVANT ONLY TO COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE, WHICH IS NOT A BAR TO RECOVERY PURSUANT TO LABOR LAW 240 (1) (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a dissent, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. Plaintiff alleged he fell from an A-frame ladder which collapsed, slipped or otherwise failed to support him. Plaintiff was using a hose to insert insulation and was supposed to keep one hand on the ladder at all times. Defendant argued plaintiff demonstrated at his deposition that he had both hands on the hose. The majority held, even if plaintiff used both hands to manipulate the hose, that would constitute comparative negligence which is not a bar to recovery:

… [D]efendant relied upon plaintiff’s deposition testimony, in which he averred that he chose a wooden, A-frame ladder, which he described as “sturdy,” and placed so it was steady and free from “wiggling.” Plaintiff testified that, while standing on the steps of the ladder, he maintained a three-point safety stance, with his feet and one arm in contact with the ladder, and his other hand holding the hose that fed the insulation into the building’s overhang. Plaintiff indicated that the ladder began to move forward, causing him to fall and sustain injuries. Defendant argued that this testimony established that the ladder “was adequate and properly placed” … , and that the testimony about plaintiff keeping one hand in contact with the ladder contradicted gestures he made during the deposition, where he seemed to indicate that “both [of his] hands [were] cupped around an imaginary hose,” thus posing issues of fact.

As Supreme Court found, the deposition testimony is not clear as to whether plaintiff maintained the three-point safety stance while on the ladder. Nonetheless, even if this disputed issue was resolved against plaintiff, this would merely present a factual question as to his potential comparative negligence, which “does not relieve defendant[] of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1)” … . Bennett v Savage, 2021 NY Slip Op 01306, Third Dept 3-4-21

 

PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION; THE ROPE AND FRAME USED TO PREVENT A HEAVY OBJECT FROM FALLING WHEN PLAINTIFF DETACHED IT FROM THE WALL DID NOT WORK (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor law 240(1) cause of action. Plaintiff was struck by a 200 pound fire damper when it fell from the wall. A co-worker was holding a rope tied to the damper and looped over a temporary frame. When plaintiff broke the last weld securing the fire damper the co-worker who was holding the rope was unable to keep the damper from falling:

… [T]he statute is violated where an object, while being hoisted or secured, falls because of the absence or inadequacy of a safety device of the kind enumerated in the statute … , including where, as here, the inadequacy or absence of a safety device results in the uncontrolled descent of an object … . Here, plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment because the rope proved inadequate to prevent the damper from falling … .

The eight-foot fall of the 200-pound damper that plaintiff was tasked with removing was not an ordinary construction site peril but an elevation-related hazard, within the ambit of Labor Law § 240(1), which was required to be secured against unregulated descent to prevent it from falling on plaintiff … . Further, regulating its descent to prevent it from falling would not have been contrary to the purpose of work … . Mayorga v 75 Plaza LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 01204, First Dept 2-25-21

 

THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE LEVEL OF CONTROL EXERCISED BY THE DEFENDANT OVER THE CONSTRUCTION WAS SUCH THAT HE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO THE HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6 ACTION; COMPLAINT REINSTATED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this Labor Law 240 (1) and 241 (6) action should not have been granted. Plaintiff fell from an unsecured ladder used to get from the basement to the first floor of the building under construction. Supreme Court had ruled the statutory homeowner’s exemption insulated the defendant from liability:

… [P]laintiff testified that defendant supplied the ladders that were used by the contractors, and the nonparty contractor testified that defendant was on site giving direction nearly every day. The nonparty contractor had asked defendant several times prior to plaintiff’s accident for permission to build stairs from the basement to the first floor, insisting that it was necessary to allow for safer and easier access to the first floor. Although defendant was aware that workers had been entering the house through the basement and using a ladder to access the first floor, he refused permission to build the stairs until after plaintiff’s accident, at which time defendant immediately directed the nonparty contractor to build the stairs. Such participation goes “far beyond ‘[a] homeowner’s typical involvement in a construction project’ ” … .. Indeed, the nonparty contractor further testified that a real estate limited liability company of which defendant was a member had hired him to perform work on the construction of a six-story building, suggesting that defendant had a degree of “sophistication or business acumen” such that he was in a position to know about and insure himself against his exposure to absolute liability … . O’Mara v Ranalli, 2021 NY Slip Op 00982, Fourth Dept 2-11-21

 

PLAINTIFF, A BUILDING MAINTENANCE WORKER, FELL FROM AN 8-FOOT UNSECURED LADDER WHEN ATTEMPTING TO REMOVE A BIRD’S NEST FROM A GUTTER; THE ACTIVITY WAS NOT ROUTINE CLEANING AND PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over an extensive two-justice dissent, determined plaintiff, who maintained a mixed use building, was engaged in a “Labor Law 240 (1)” covered activity when he was attempting to remove a bird’s nest from a gutter. Plaintiff fell from an 8-foot unsecured ladder when he was surprised by a bird flying out of the nest:

… [P]laintiff’s work in removing the bird’s nest from one of the building’s gutters was not routine cleaning. Plaintiff had never before been given such a task during his time working on the premises. Indeed, the reason for removing the nest was, in part, to prevent the further accumulation of bird excrement under the nest. Plaintiff’s supervisor characterized the task of removing the nest as nonroutine cleaning. In addition, removing the bird’s nest from the gutter, which was located above the tenant’s entry door, necessarily involved elevation-related risks that are not generally associated with typical household cleaning … . Although plaintiff’s work did not necessitate the use of specialized equipment or expertise, nor was it performed in conjunction with any construction, renovation or repair project on the building … , those factors are not dispositive in light of the atypical nature of the work and its attendant elevation-related risks and, moreover, the fact that plaintiff’s task involved the removal of extraneous materials that had formed in the gutter not due to its normal operation … . Healy v Est Downtown, LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 00699, Fourth Dept 2-5-21

 

PLAINTIFF APPARENTLY FELL FROM A WET, SLIPPERY WOODEN LADDER; HE WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE ACTION; NO NEED TO SHOW THE LADDER WAS INHERENTLY DEFECTIVE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240(1) without showing the ladder from which he fell was inherently defective:

Plaintiff testified that he was injured when he fell while using a wet and slippery wooden ladder provided by defendants for him to move between the tenth and eleventh floors of the construction site to perform his work. This testimony established prima facie that plaintiff’s work exposed him to an elevation-related risk against which defendants failed to provide him with proper protection, as required by Labor Law § 240(1) … . It is clear that the ladder was not adequate to prevent plaintiff from falling and there is no dispute that other than the ladder, no additional safety devices were provided … . Plaintiff was not required to show that the ladder was inherently defective … . Millligan v Tutor Perini Corp., 2021 NY Slip Op 00630, First Dept 2-4-21

 

PLAINTIFF FELL FROM A SCAFFOLD WHICH DID NOT HAVE GUARDRAILS AND WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION DESPITE DEFENDANTS’ ARGUMENTS THAT PLAINTIFF DID NOT LOCK THE WHEELS ON THE SCAFFOLD AND PLAINTIFF MAY HAVE FAINTED OR STEPPED BACKWARDS OFF THE SCAFFOLD (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 apparently fell from a scaffold which did not have guardrails. Defendants unsuccessfully argued plaintiff did not lock the wheels of the scaffold and therefore was the sole proximate cause of the accident:

… [D]efendants failed to raise an issue of fact as to whether plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his accident. Given the scaffold’s inadequacy to protect him from falling, plaintiff’s alleged failure to lock the wheels of the scaffold could not be the sole proximate cause of his accident … . It would be at most comparative negligence, which is not a defense to a Labor Law § 240(1) claim … . Defendants’ argument, raised for the first time on appeal, that plaintiff was the sole proximate cause because he was not wearing a safety harness is also unavailing … , as is their suggestion that plaintiff may have fainted and/or stepped backwards off the scaffold … . Ordonez v One City Block, LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 00529, First Dept 2-2-21

 

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF FELL FROM A LADDER, HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED; THERE WAS A VIDEO OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL WHICH SHOWED THE LADDER WAS SECURED TO THE SCAFFOLDING AND DID NOT MOVE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined plaintiff’s Labor Law 240(1) cause of action was properly dismissed. Plaintiff fell from a ladder, but there was a video of the fall which showed the ladder did not move and was secured to the scaffolding:

Defendant was properly granted summary judgment dismissing the § 240(1) claim. Surveillance footage of plaintiff falling from the ladder demonstrates that it did not move or shake, refuting plaintiff’s testimony to the contrary … . In addition, photographs taken soon after his fall show that the top of the ladder was connected to the sidewalk bridge and scaffolding above, and tied to the scaffolding structure about one-third of the way up. Cordova v 653 Eleventh Ave. LLC., 2021 NY Slip Op 00490, First Dept 1-28-21

 

PLAINTIFF WAS USING A CLOSED A-FRAME LADDER WHEN IT SLIPPED OUT FROM UNDER HIM; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this Labor Law 240(1) action should have been granted. Plaintiff was using a closed A-frame ladder when it slipped out from under him:

A worker’s decision to use an A-frame ladder in the closed position is not a per se reason to declare him the sole proximate cause of an accident,” and plaintiff here “gave a specific reason why he used the ladder in the closed position” … . Defendants also did not elicit any evidence that it would have been plaintiff’s “‘normal and logical response'” to use the taller ladder that they allege was available to plaintiff at the time of his accident … . Similarly, as for plaintiff’s putative recalcitrance, defendants failed to establish that, among other things: plaintiff knew that the taller ladder was available for his use; he was expected to use the taller ladder for his work; he “‘chose for no good reason not to do so'” … ; and, he refused to follow a specific instruction to use the taller ladder for his work … . Ultimately, “[d]efendants’ contentions would amount to, at most, comparative negligence, which is not a defense to a Labor Law § 240(1) violation … . Morales v 2400 Ryer Ave. Realty, LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 00498, First Dept 1-28-21

 

PLAINTIFF’S FALL FROM A LOW CONCRETE RETAINING WALL TO THE GROUND WAS NOT THE TYPE OF ELEVATION-RELATED INCIDENT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court determined the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action should have been dismissed. Plaintiff alleged he stepped on a low concrete retaining wall and slipped on oil, which was not the type of elevation hazard covered by section 240(1):

… [T]he defendant established that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240(1) on the ground that the plaintiff was not exposed to the type of elevation-related hazard contemplated by that statute. The evidence submitted by the defendant established that the height differential from the concrete retaining wall to the ground did not constitute a physically significant elevation differential covered by the statute … . Eliassian v G.F. Constr., Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 00419, Second Dept 1-27-21

 

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