You are here: / Labor Law-Construction Law

THE HOMEOWNER AND THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT SUPERVISORY AUTHORITY TO BE LIABLE IN THIS LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON-LAW NEGLIGENCE ACTION STEMMING FROM A SCAFFOLD COLLAPSE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the Labor Law 200 and negligence causes of action against the homeowners (the Chetrits) and the general contractor (J & S) should have been dismissed in this scaffold-collapse case. Neither defendant had sufficient supervisory authority to trigger liability. Plaintiff worked for a company hired by J & S, the general contractor:

“‘Section 200 of the Labor Law merely codified the common-law duty imposed upon an owner or general contractor to provide construction site work[ers] with a safe place to work'” … . “‘To be held liable under Labor Law § 200 for injuries arising from the manner in which work is performed, a defendant must have authority to exercise supervision and control over the work'” … . Here, both the Chetrits and J & S demonstrated their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence causes of action insofar as asserted against each of them, as the record demonstrates that neither the Chetrits nor J & S supervised, directed, or otherwise controlled the plaintiff’s work … . In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Contrary to the plaintiff’s contentions, the fact that Abraham Chetrit, David Chetrit, and J & S’s employees often visited the work site to inspect the work, make requests, and ask questions does not preclude summary judgment, as “‘[m]ere general supervisory authority at [the] work site for the purpose of overseeing the progress of the work and inspecting the work product is insufficient to impose liability under Labor Law § 200′” … . Moreover, although J & S employees had the power to stop any unsafe work at the work site, this alone is insufficient to impose liability under Labor Law § 200 … . Debennedetto v Chetrit, 2021 NY Slip Op 00413, Second Dept 1-27-21

 

THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S WORK ON A BOILER WAS ROUTINE MAINTENANCE OR PART OF A LARGER COVERED ACTIVITY IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) ACTION; DEFENDANTS DID NOT SUPERVISE OR CONTROL PLAINTIFF’S WORK REQUIRING DISMISSAL OF THE LABOR LAW 200 AND NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTIONS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether plaintiff was engaged in a covered activity and not routine maintenance of a boiler. In addition, the First Department held that the defendant did not supervise of control the plaintiff’s work and therefore the Labor Law 200 and common law negligence causes of action should have been dismissed:

Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) do not cover workers engaged in routine maintenance … . The determination of whether a worker was engaged in a covered activity is not made at the moment of injury, but in the context of the entire project … . While plaintiff here was engaged in replacing a boiler steam valve, an activity some courts have deemed routine maintenance … , it was part of a larger project that included removing portions of the boilers via blowtorches and installation of new components by welding, thus raising an issue of fact whether it falls within covered activity … . …

Plaintiff’s accident arose from the means and methods of the work, not a defective condition … , and the record is clear that defendants neither supervised nor controlled the work being performed by plaintiff and his coworkers at the time of the accident. Thus, this Court, upon a search of the record, dismisses plaintiff’s Labor Law § 200 and common-law claims … . Gaston v Trustees of Columbia Univ. in the City of N.Y., 2021 NY Slip Op 00254, First Dept 1-19-21

 

THE ACCIDENT WAS NOT THE TYPE OF GRAVITY-RELATED INCIDENT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1); BUT THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR WAS LIABLE PURSUANT TO LABOR LAW 200 (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action was properly dismissed but the Labor Law 200 cause of action should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff was injured when a pipe rolled over his foot, not the type of gravity-related accident covered by Labor Law 240 (1). But the accident related to the means and methods of the work over which the defendant general contractor (Gilbane) may have exercised supervisory control:

Plaintiff was injured while employed by nonparty Titan Industrial Corporation (TIC) when a pipe rolled onto his foot. On the day of the accident, plaintiff’s foreman instructed plaintiff and his two coworkers to insert some pipes under a concrete planter to relocate it. Plaintiff and his coworkers were pushing and pulling the planter from the sides, while the foreman was pushing it with a bobcat, when one of the pipes rolled over plaintiff’s foot, causing an injury. …

The operation, according to plaintiff’s foreman, was normally performed with two Bobcats, one pushing and one pulling the load; in this case, however, the operation was performed with only one Bobcat because the others were in use elsewhere on the site. Gilbane required that onsite Bobcat operators be licensed and kept track of all such operating engineers; in the event an unlicensed person were found to be operating a Bobcat contrary to instructions, the subcontractor would be notified by Gilbane and instructed to shut down the equipment. It is undisputed that the foreman who was operating the Bobcat involved in plaintiff’s accident lacked the required license and, if [the onsite supervisor’s] testimony is to be credited, should have been prohibited from doing so by Gilbane. Lemache v MIP One Wall St. Acquisition, LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 00019, First Dept 1-5-21

 

, ,

THE DEFENDANT LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES FUNCTIONED AS A SINGLE INTEGRATED UNIT WITH PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER; PLAINTIFF’S ONLY REMEDY IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE IS THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW BENEFITS HE APPLIED FOR AND RECEIVED BEFORE BRINGING THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, over an extensive dissent, determined the corporate entities plaintiff sued in this slip and fall case function as a single integrated entity with plaintiff’s employer, the nursing home where he was injured. Plaintiff had applied for and received Workers’ Compensation benefits and then brought this Labor 240(1) action. The First Department held that plaintiff’s exclusive remedy was Workers’ Compensation:

… [W]e find that Hopkins Ventures has shown ownership of 100% of both KFG Land and KFG Operating and that it exercised complete managerial and financial control over both companies, operating them as if they were a single integrated entity. Since the evidentiary proof submitted by KFG Land was sufficient to make out its prima facie case, that the LLCs functioned as a single integrated entity in connection with the joint venture of acquiring and operating the property and nursing home, the exclusivity provisions of the WCL apply. Plaintiff failed to raise a material issue of fact to defeat defendant’s motion for summary judgment. …

Although the dissent reaches the underlying merits of plaintiff’s cross appeal concerning the dismissal of his Labor Law §240(1) on the basis that he was not engaged in a “repair” or “alteration” within the meaning of Labor Law § 240(1) at the time of his accident, we affirm on the ground that even if plaintiff was engaged in alteration or repair, the exclusivity provisions of the WCL would be his sole remedy since he applied for and received those benefits. Fuller v KFG L & I, LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 07998, First Dept 12-29-20

 

PLAINTIFF SLIPPED ON ICE AND SNOW IN AN AREA OF THE WORK SITE USED AS A WALKWAY; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 241(6) ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THERE WAS A DISSENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a dissent, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 241(6) cause of action. Plaintiff slipped and fell on ice and snow on a walkway used on the work site:

[12 NYCRR] Section 23-1.7(d) provides, in pertinent part, that no employee shall be permitted “to use a floor, passageway, walkway, scaffold, platform or other elevated working surface which is in a slippery condition” and requires the removal of any “[i]ce, snow, water, grease and any other foreign substance which may cause slippery footing.” Here, plaintiff’s accident occurred while he was walking on a path in the fenced-in area between the security guard booth and the worksite entrance at Staircase B. The general superintendent … swore in his deposition that there was an unpaved path between the booth and the worksite entrance, that it was one of two entrances to the worksite, that it was a “walked path that workers generally took” and that it was “an area that should be kept clear of snow and ice and any other slippery conditions so that workers don’t injure themselves[.]” Potenzo v City of New York, 2020 NY Slip Op 08013, First Dept 12-29-30

 

, ,

HEARSAY INSUFFICIENT TO DEFEAT PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) ACTION; THE INDEMNIFICATION AND CONTRIBUTION CLAIM WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED BECAUSE PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUFFER GRAVE INJURY WITHIN THE MEANING OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW 11 (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined hearsay was not sufficient to defeat plaintiff’s summary judgment in this Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) case. In addition the indemnification and contribution claims were properly dismissed because plaintiff did not suffer a “grave injury” within the meaning of Workers’ Compensation Law 11:

Plaintiff commenced this action alleging, inter alia, violations of Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) seeking to recover for personal injuries he sustained when, while dismantling a scaffold in an elevator shaft of a building under renovation, he fell from the scaffold to the bottom of the shaft. … Plaintiff testified that his employer had instructed him to dismantle the scaffold and the sole support for Empire’s contention that dismantling the scaffold was outside the scope of his duties was inadmissible hearsay testimony. …

Pursuant to their contract, Empire agreed to indemnify Pen & Brush for damages, “arising from any act, omission, negligence, potential claims and losses” of, inter alia, Empire or its subcontractors “during the performance of the Contract.” Its indemnification obligation was triggered here where plaintiff’s injuries arose from the act of Empire’s subcontractor, Lough Allen, in dismantling the scaffold and a finding of negligence is not required … .

Supreme Court properly determined plaintiff had not sustained a grave injury and dismissed the common-law indemnification and contribution claims against Lough Allen … . As relevant here, “grave injury” within the meaning of Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 includes “an acquired injury to the brain caused by external physical force resulting in permanent total disability.” Permanent total disability in the context of Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 means unemployable in any capacity … . Clarke v Empire Gen. Contr. & Painting Corp., 2020 NY Slip Op 07698, First Dept 12-22-20

 

QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S INJURY WAS DUE TO DEFENDANTS’ FAILURE TO PROVIDE HIM WITH THE PROPER PROTECTIVE DEVICES PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION; THE DISSENT DISAGREED; A STACK OF CONCRETE BOARDS FELL OFF A TRUCK ONTO PLAINTIFF WHEN THE SKIDS UNDER THE BOARDS BROKE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a dissent, determined plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. Plaintiff was injured when a stack of cement boards fell off a truck onto him after the skids under the concrete boards broke:

Plaintiff failed to demonstrate conclusively that the accident was proximately caused by [defendants’] failure to provide him with proper protective devices for the performance of his work. The load of cement boards atop the pallet jack did not fall because of an inadequacy or deficiency in the pallet jack but, rather, because the wooden skids underneath the load of cement boards broke, causing the load to fall from the pallet jack. Coupled with the dispute as to whether plaintiff was permitted to use the street level hoist for the delivery of cement boards, this evidence renders it impossible to determine as a matter of law that [defendants] failed to supply plaintiff with adequate safety devices for the performance of his work and that this failure was a proximate cause of plaintiff’s accident … . Valle v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 2020 NY Slip Op 07685, First Dept 12-17-20

 

PLAINTIFF ALLEGED HE WAS STANDING ON AN A-FRAME LADDER WHEN IT SHIFTED CAUSING A CONCRETE SLAB TO FALL ON HIS HAND; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; IN ADDITION A DEFENDANT FAILED TO SHOW IT WAS NOT AN “OWNER” WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240(1) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s Labor Law 240(1) cause of action should not have been granted. Plaintiff alleged the A-frame ladder he was standing when positioning a concrete slab shifted causing the slab to fall on his hand. In addition the Second Department determined defendant (Cappy’s) did not demonstrate it was not an “owner” within the meaning of Labor Law 240(1):

The defendants failed to show, prima facie, that this incident did not involve an injury caused by the failure to provide a safety device to protect against an elevation-related risk, within the meaning of the statute. In particular, the plaintiff’s work entailed attempting to move or lift a heavy slab of cement at ceiling or roof level, while standing on a ladder. The plaintiff testified that the ladder “moved” while he was reaching for the slab, causing the slab to fall or drop. The plaintiff alleges, inter alia, that a sling or other device should have been provided to secure the slab. Under these circumstances, the defendants failed to show, prima facie, that this incident did not result from the failure to provide such safety device to protect against an elevation-related risk, and the evidence also raised issues of fact as to that matter … .

Further, [defendant] Cappy’s failed to show, prima facie, that it cannot be deemed an “owner” within the meaning of Labor Law § 240(1). Under Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6), “those parties with a property interest who hire the general contractor” are deemed “owners” … . “Lessees who hire a contractor and have the right to control the work being done are considered ‘owners’ within the meaning of the statutes” … . Gomez v 670 Merrick Rd. Realty Corp., 2020 NY Slip Op 07549, Second Dept 12-16-20

 

,

PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN A WHEEL ON THE CONTAINER HE WAS PUSHING GOT STUCK IN A GAP IN THE FLOOR AFTER THE PLYWOOD COVERING THE GAP BROKE; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO ADD THE RELEVANT INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE LABOR LAW 241(6), LABOR LAW 200 AND NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s Labor Law 241(6), Labor Law 200 and Negligence causes of action should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff was pushing a container of cinderblocks when plywood covering a gap in the floor broke and a wheel got stuck, causing plaintiff to be propelled head over heels and land on his back. The Second Department further held plaintiff should have been allowed to amend the complaint by adding the relevant Industrial Code provision, despite the 3 1/2 delay in bringing the motion to amend. Defendant was not prejudiced by the amendment:

As Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-1.7(e)(1) is applicable to these facts and defendant failed to show that it would be prejudiced by an amendment of the bill of particulars to assert a violation of this provision as a predicate to the Labor Law § 241(6) claim, plaintiff’s motion to amend should be granted (see CPLR 3025[b] …). In view of the absence of prejudice to defendant, plaintiff was not required to explain his 3½-year delay in bringing this motion … . …

… [A]n inadequately protected gap in the floor of a passageway at a construction site that causes a container, dumpster, or the like to become stuck or otherwise lose its balance and trip, slip, or fall violates Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-1.7(e)(1) and can serve as a predicate for a Labor Law § 241(6) claim. …

Defendant failed to establish prima facie that it neither created nor had notice of the dangerous condition of the hallway floor … . Trinidad v Turner Constr. Co., 2020 NY Slip Op 07519, First Dept 12-15-20

 

THE HOMEOWNERS EXERCISED NO SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER THE INJURY-CAUSING WORK IN THIS LABOR LAW 200 AND NEGLIGENCE CASE; THE CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ANALYZED AS A “MEANS AND METHODS OF WORK” ACTION, NOT A “CREATE OR HAVE NOTICE OF A DANGEROUS CONDITION” ACTION; THE HOMEOWNERS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the Labor Law 200 and negligence causes of action against the homeowners should have been dismissed because the homeowners did not exercise any supervisory control over plaintiff’s work. The hole into which plaintiff fell was dug as part of the construction project. Supreme Court should not have analyzed the case using a “create or have notice of a dangerous condition” theory:

Plaintiff was injured when he fell into a hole dug by employees of codefendant Apex Construction/Masonry Corp. (Apex) in the backyard of Homeowner Defendants’ home during renovation of the premises. The hole was created for the purpose of building the foundation for a deck. Homeowner Defendants hired nonparty IA Construction Management Inc. as the general contractor, which subcontracted out part of the work to Apex; plaintiff was an employee of IA Construction.

Here, plaintiff’s accident arose from the means and methods of Apex’s work, not a defective premises condition. Thus, the dispositive issue is whether the Homeowner Defendants had authority to exercise supervisory control over the injury-producing work, not whether they created or had notice of the hazardous condition … . The record establishes, as a matter of law, that they had no such authority. It is undisputed that Homeowner Defendants lived offsite during the renovation project and had no involvement with the work, and Apex’s owner testified that the homeowners did not direct or control Apex’s work … . Tsongas v Apex Constr./Masonry Corp., 2020 NY Slip Op 07520, First Dept 12-15-20

 

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